CLLS responds on bail-in: CLLS' financial and insolvency law committees have responded to Treasury's consultation on the implementation of bail-in powers. CLLS feels it would have been better for the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 and relevant secondary legislation to have been promulgated only once the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) was final. However, it appears the UK Government does not want to wait until January 2016 to apply bail-in requirements and so is proceeding ahead of the EU timetable.

What you need to know

The entry of the Cape Town Convention into force under Canadian law is a positive step, but has led to a legislative “black hole” in the protection provided to certain aviation creditors, bringing with it considerable uncertainty and potentially expensive ramifications.

The Cape Town Convention in Canada

The Court found that the appointment of voluntary administrators to a company constituted oppressive conduct under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in circumstances where it was part of a clear strategy by the controlling shareholder to gain control of the company’s business, to the exclusion of the minority shareholders.  This case provides some useful observations on the operation of section 232, particularly around action by a parent company “of the affairs of” a subsidiary. 

The Court refused to declare an appointment of administrators invalid under section 447C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) on the basis of a previous purportedly invalid removal of a director and alleged insufficient grounds to establish that the company was, or was likely to become insolvent.  This case illustrates the Court’s willingness to overlook technical anomalies in exercising its discretion under section 447C where the end result for the company would be the same, and a broad approach in assessing whether there are reasonable grounds to form a view that a company

Law No.  176-V "On Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy" came into effect on 25 March 2014.

The Law "On Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy" (Law) has replaced the Law “On Bankruptcy” dated 21 January 1997. The law applies to legal entities and individual entrepreneurs. As with its predecessor, the Law does not apply to state owned entities, pension funds, banks, and insurance companies (for which special provision is made in the relevant legislation). 

As compared with the previous law, the Law focuses more on rehabilitation procedure.

Russia has continually been working to improve the functioning of its judicial system and the administration of justice for more than two decades. The active reforms began with a decree by the Russian president creating the judiciary as a branch of the state, separate from the legislature and the executive, and these reforms have yet to be completed. In fact, we are now seeing a new level of reform, in which the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation will cease to exist and its powers will pass to the newly formed Supreme Court of Russia.

In recent years some high profile (and controversial) court decisions have swelled the list of liabilities that must be paid as expenses of an administration. Administration expenses enjoy "super priority", being payable out of floating charge realisations ahead of the claims of preferential creditors and floating charge holders. So, when an otherwise unsecured claim ranks as an administration expense, it clearly benefits the relevant creditor, but at the expense of the floating charge holder.

The UK Treasury and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have been drip-feeding the industry rules and practical details of the transfer of consumer credit (CC) regulation to FCA. FCA has now published the final form of its detailed rules in its Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC), with feedback and practical advice. The rules apply from 1 April 2014 with limited grace periods only. It is critical that all firms carrying on credit-related regulated activities know what the changes mean for them.

The case concerning the Game group of companies' administration has now been played out in the Court of Appeal and the eagerly anticipated judgment has been handed down.

The issue at stake concerned a landlord's ability to recover rent as an expense of administration (and therefore payable before other creditors) where such rent is payable in advance but where the tenant's administration occurs immediately before a quarter day's rent falling due.

This case serves as an important reminder that board appointments should not be taken lightly - even as a “personal favour”.  Directors should ensure that they are sufficiently abreast of the affairs of their companies and actively involved in their management.  An argument that a director was “not really involved” in management is unlikely to find favour when the company finds itself in strife.