In Smailes and another v McNally and another^[i]the High Court refused the claimant's application for relief from sanctions, finding the claimant's failure in respect of its disclosure obligations under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 31) amounted to a significant and serious breach of an "unless order".

On 22 April 2015 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, which was heard in October last year.  In short it decided that: 1) defendant directors cannot raise illegality as a defence to a claim by a company where the directors themselves acted wrongfully; and 2) a claim in fraudulent trading under Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 213)has extra-territorial effect.

Background

In SwissMarineCorporation Ltd v OW Supply & Trading[1], the High Court refused to grant an anti-suit injunction restraining Danish insolvency proceedings. This case provides a useful discussion of the circumstances in which the court are likely to grant an anti-suit injunction, and in particular where there are jurisdiction issues involving elements of both civil and insolvency proceedings.

In the recent case of HMRC v Munir & Others[1], HMRC successfully applied to the Court for committal of three company officers for contempt of court where an order appointing a provisional liquidator was knowingly breached.

 Background

In the past decade, Chapter 11 practice has witnessed the rise of a new phenomenon: structured dismissals.¹ Broadly speaking, the term structured dismissal is an umbrella term for a dismissal order that includes additional bells and whistles, such as releases, protocols for claims administration or provisions permitting the gifting of assets to junior stakeholders. Like a Chapter 11 plan, a structured dismissal often identifies how proceeds are to be distributed while retaining jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court for claims administration and other specified matters.

On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wellness International Network, Ltd., et al. v. Sharif.¹ The Wellness decision clarifies one of the most significant open issues created four years ago by the Court’s highly controversial decision in Stern v.

ADVISORY | DISPUTES | TRANSACTIONS Financial Litigation roundup Spring 2015 Welcome to the latest edition of our Financial Litigation roundup. In this edition, we consider recent judgments and ongoing cases from the banking and financial world in the UK and Asia, as well as regulatory developments across those jurisdictions. English judgments SPL Private Finance (PF1) IC Limited and others v Arch Financial Products LLP and others; SPL Private Finance (PF2) IC Ltd and other v Robin Farrell. more> McWilliam v Norton Finance (UK) Ltd (in liquidation).

Removal of requirement for sanction

Previously under section 165 IA 86, liquidators in a voluntary winding up would have to seek sanction of the company (in members’ voluntary liquidation) or of the court or liquidation committee (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) in order to exercise their powers to pay debts, compromise claims etc. SBEEA removes this requirement so that liquidators can exercise those powers freely. This will aid expeditious winding up of companies. Equivalent provisions have also been put into place for trustees in bankruptcy.

In a May 4, 2015, decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected secured lenders’ appeals of a controversial bankruptcy court decision confirming the Chapter 11 plan of reorganization of MPM Silicones, LLC (also known as “Momentive”). The district court opinion, by Judge Vincent Briccetti, affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision that Momentive’s senior secured lenders could be “crammed down” at a below-market interest rate, without payment of a make-whole premium.

In April 2013, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) came into force, making the success fee applied to a Conditional Fee Arrangement (CFA), and the After the Event (ATE) insurance premiums, irrecoverable by a successful party to litigation proceedings.  However, under article 4 of LAPSO, there is an "insolvency exemption" making these costs recoverable by an insolvency practitioner.