Since the beginning of the 21st century and the first big wave of security enforcements in Germany, who holds the entitlement to enforce a share pledge has caused countless disputes between pledgees and insolvency administrators. This issue has now been resolved by a recently released judgment of the German Federal Supreme Court of 27 Oct 2022 (case no.: IX ZR 145/21), which has now held that pledged shares as well as pledges over certain other non-movable rights such as trademarks or patents can be enforced by the pledgee (only) and not by the administrator.

Since the beginning of the 21st century and the first big wave of security enforcements in Germany, who holds the entitlement to enforce a share pledge between pledgees and insolvency administrators has caused countless disputes. This issue has now been resolved by a recently released judgment of the German Federal Supreme Court of 27 Oct 2022 (case no.: IX ZR 145/21), which has now held that pledged shares as well as pledges over certain other non-movable rights such as trademarks or patents can be enforced by the pledgee (only) and not by the administrator.

Introduction

Introduction

Executive Summary

The recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SAV & Ors [2022] UKSC 25 has considered the nature of the so-called “creditor duty” and whether directors are required to take into account the interests of creditors when the company is “insolvent, bordering on insolvency, or that an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable.”

The Sequana decision also provides guidance about when the so-called “creditor duty” is engaged.

Background

Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?

The recent decision of the High Court in Fistonich & Anor v Gibson & Ors [2022] NZHC 1422 considered whether receivers have a right to retain surplus funds to meet the cost of defending actual or forecast claims against the receivers.

Background

The case involves the sale of the business and land associated with Villa Maria winery, which was owned and operated through Villa Maria Estate Ltd and established 60 years ago by Sir George Fistonich. FFWL Ltd was the holding company of Villa Maria Estate Ltd.

Retired U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber once observed that “issues as to the interplay between environmental law and bankruptcy are among the thorniest on the litigation map.” Difficulties navigating this interplay largely stem from the inherent conflict between the goals of bankruptcy and environmental laws, with the former aimed at providing debtors with a fresh start, while the latter cast a broad net to hold parties (even some innocent parties) responsible for past harm to the environment.