In Randhawa and Randhawa v Turpin and Hardy [2017] the Court of Appeal considered the comparatively simple question of whether the sole director of a company with articles that required two directors for a board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22(2) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (paragraph 22(2)). The complicating feature was that, whilst 75% of the shares in the company were held by the sole director, the remaining 25% were registered in the name of a long-dissolved Manx company.

Background

Claimant Litigant in Person recovers 150 per hour for his time

Spencer and another v Paul Jones Financial Services Ltd (unreported), 6 January 2017 (Senior Courts Costs Office)

Summary

A claimant litigant in person can recover costs at his typical hourly rate (150). Whilst the burden of proving such financial loss lies on the claimant, the burden is not impossibly high.

Facts

A recent decision by the German Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) has caused significant concerns in the restructuring community because it will severely complicate future restructurings in Germany or even make them impossible overall. In its decision dated 28 November 2016 (GrS 1/15, published on 8 February 2017) the court held that the so- called restructuring decree (circular on taxation of restructuring profits / Sanierungserlass) dated 27 March 2003 (IV A 6 S 2140 8/03, BStBl. I 2003, 240, amended by circular letter dated 22 December 2009 (IV C 9 S 4140/07/10001-01, BStBl.

The opening of the retail water market next month (April 2017) will change the water sector on a fundamental level with most businesses in England being able to choose their preferred suppliers. There is no doubt that the opening of the market presents both opportunities and risks for water suppliers. The already low margins in the industry will naturally be squeezed through competition, but the race for new business could also drive behaviours that further damage suppliers' profitability.

Potential pitfalls of contracting in the new market

In less than a week after its bankruptcy filing, a debtor was able to obtain confirmation of its prepackaged plan of reorganization in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. In allowing the case to be confirmed on a compressed timeframe that was unprecedented for cases filed in the Southern District of New York, the Bankruptcy Court held that the 28-day notice period for confirmation of a chapter 11 plan could run coextensively with the period under which creditor votes on the plan were solicited prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case.

The law on debt restructurings and liability management is back to where it was. Yesterday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the controversial District Court decisions in the Marblegate-Education Management bondholder litigation. The case attracted wide-spread attention in financial markets, and we discussed it in an earlier client alert.

The European Commission has published draft legislative proposals which would require large non-EU banking firms with EU operations to establish an intermediate holding company in the EU. The proposed rules are similar to US requirements for certain non-US banking organizations to establish an intermediate holding company in the US. This note discusses the impact of the proposals on foreign banking groups and their restructuring plans, with a particular reference to US banks. It also considers the UK’s position in light of Brexit.

Introduction

On November 17, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision in which it held that holders of first lien notes and second lien notes of Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (together, “EFIH”) are entitled to payment of make-whole claims. In its reversal of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court and Delaware District Court, the Third Circuit focused largely on the distinction that the payment in question was tied to a “redemption” of the bonds, and was not a “prepayment” premium.

September 2016

Commercial Litigation

Can a conflicting email and attachment regarding settlement amount to an acceptance, or does it constitute a counter offer?

Summary

In an appeal from the County Court, regarding the forfeiture of a lease, the High Court confirmed that a purported acceptance of a settlement offer was actually a counter offer. In suggesting an alternative payment date, the company had made a counter offer which the other party had not accepted.

Background

The case of Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited (in liquidation) v (1) Gary John Fielding (2) Sally Anne Fielding [2016] determined whether a claim in respect of breach of duty against two directors of Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited (Burnden) was time-barred. The alleged breach of duty was in connection with a distribution in specie. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision and held that section 21 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) applied so that the claim was not subject to the usual period of limitation.