There have been a number of recent English Court judgments of interest in the corporate field and this corporate update reports on cases relevant in relation to warranties and representations in M&A transactions, restrictive covenants in acquisition agreements, the enforcement of foreign judgments in cross-border insolvency proceedings and the piercing of the corporate veil.
WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS? - Ensuring clarity of intention when drafting acquisition agreements
In the current economic climate, contactor insolvency is an increasing concern for all participants in the construction industry.
The issue is currently receiving close attention from the NSW Government who commissioned an independent report following a spate of contractor insolvency events in 2012 (including Reed Constructions Australia Pty Ltd, St Hilliers Construction Pty Ltd, Southern Cross Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd and Hastie Group Limited).
Foreign companies are frequently used to hold assets or other investments in Hong Kong. Some of these foreign companies are not registered under Part XI of the Companies Ordinance (“CO”) (“Unregistered Companies”). There are various reasons for not registering foreign companies in Hong Kong, including confidentiality and tax benefits. However, there may be some drawbacks to this approach.
The Federal Government has proposed a major strengthening of APRA’s crisis management powers and has released a consultation paper containing wide-ranging proposals for financial services reform that are now open to industry comment.
The recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Re Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2012] VSCA 202 gives liquidators comfort when disclaiming leases (as the liquidator of a landlord) pursuant to s 568(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘the Act’).
After 448 days in court, over 85,000 documents and more than 10 judgments, a special bench of the Western Australian Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) (No.3) [2012] WASCA 157 (Bell Appeal Decision). The Bell Appeal Decision raises issues relating to the integrity of transactions with companies facing insolvency, which may create serious liability issues for company directors and lenders alike.
In light of the modern trend towards “pre-pack” arrangements as a legitimate restructuring solution, a recent judgment handed down in the Federal Court provides a timely reminder for insolvency practitioners that independence is paramount and liquidators can be removed upon the application of a creditor in circumstances where there is a perception of conflict.
On May 29, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the chapter 11 cases of RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, and RadLAX Gateway Deck, LLC (the “RadLAX Cases”)1 held by a vote of 8-02 that a chapter 11 plan cannot be confirmed if the plan (i) is rejected by a class of secured claims, (ii) provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of liens securing such claims, and (iii) deprives the holders of such claims of the right to credit bid at the sale of collateral.
Preliminary Remarks
On March 1, 2012, the Act for the Further Facilitation of the Restructuring of Companies (ESUG) came into effect. The main aim of the ESUG is to improve the prospects of an early and successful restructuring of distressed companies, to involve creditors in the selection process of the (preliminary) insolvency administrator and to improve the reliability and predictability of particular insolvency plan proceedings. The main changes of the ESUG to the current German insolvency law (InsO) comprise:
On 29 February 2012, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment concerning the treatment of client money in the long-running administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”).