In previous issues of TransAtlantic, we reported that the UK Pensions Regulator had issued contribution notices (CNs) and financial support directions (FSDs) against insolvent companies in the Nortel and Lehman Brothers groups. Click here for the June story on Nortel (see page 5); click here for the November story on Lehman (see page 7).
The High Court has decided that financial support directions can be issued against insolvent companies as well as solvent ones.
The administrators of 20 insolvent companies in the Lehman Brothers and Nortel groups had argued that the Pensions Regulator’s Determinations Panel had no legal power to determine that it would be reasonable to issue FSDs against these companies. The High Court disagreed and decided:
Summary and implications
Almost exactly one year on from the Order* coming into force, many people remain unaware that it is no longer possible to appoint an administrative receiver over an overseas incorporated company.
Lenders and indeed insolvency practitioners should be aware that this is the case even when dealing with qualifying floating charges created before 15 September 2003 but alternative strategies, including administration, may be pursued to the same effect.
Administrative receivership
Introduction
Summary and implications
The Government is proposing to give struggling companies a protected moratorium against enforcement action, to help them to negotiate a restructuring deal with their creditors.
The moratorium would be available to all companies which are preparing a CVA or scheme of arrangement. At present, a moratorium is only available to small companies* who are proposing a CVA.
On 24 November 2009, ASIC released Consultation Paper 124 which provides guidance for directors on their duty to prevent insolvent trading which is imposed by section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001.
The economic climate over the past two years has seen a growing number of corporate insolvencies. There is also evidence that directors, and particularly directors of small to medium size enterprises, do not fully understand their duty to prevent insolvent trading.
Before 1993, the question of whether a creditor of a corporation being wound up had received an unfair preference from that corporation was determined under section 122 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). In 1993, a new Part 5.7B was inserted into the Corporations Act to deal with voidable transactions such as unfair preferences. Since then two lines of divergent judicial authority have developed:
Kookmin Bank v Rainy Sky
We have received a number of urgent enquiries about the outcome of the Kookmin Bank case, which was recently decided by the Court of Appeal, in London. The judgment was issued at the end of May 2010 and held, in effect, that refund guarantees -- relating to advance payments of about US$46 million -- were unenforceable by the Buyers to whom the guarantees had been issued. Given the importance of refund guarantees to our shipping and banking clients, we are issuing this summary of the judgment and its general significance.
Summary
The briefing provides an overview of the reorganisation plan introduced by the new Greek Bankruptcy Code. Its purpose is to set out the more important mechanics of the reorganisation plan and examine its more important ramifications within the bankruptcy process.
The new Greek Bankruptcy Code
The European Commission has published a paper on its study covering pre-insolvency, early intervention, reorganisation and liquidation.