The Supreme Court has confirmed in Jetivia v Bilta that where a company brings a claim against its directors for losses caused by their wrongdoing, the directors cannot escape the claim by arguing that their actions are attributed to the company itself.
The Supreme Court also held that s.213 of the Insolvency Act, (which permits the Court to take action against those who have conducted the business of a company in order to defraud creditors) was not jurisdictionally confined and applied to people and companies resident outside the UK.
Background: Grupo OAS, a Brazilian construction conglomerate linked to a massive corruption scandal (“OAS”), filed for Chapter 15 creditor protection in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on April 15, 2015, two weeks after entering bankruptcy in Brazil. If “recognized” by Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein, the Chapter 15 petition would, among other things, essentially bind OAS creditors in the United States to the restructuring terms approved by the Brazilian court overseeing OAS’s reorganization.
Employees who transfer to a new employer from a business that is under insolvency proceedings may be able to recover unpaid wages and other debts from the Secretary of State.
However, BIS v Dobrucki has confirmed that the Secretary of State will only pick up the liabilities of the old employer (the transferor). It will not be responsible for liabilities that are incurred after the transfer has taken place; that is, any liability of the new employer (the transferee).
The background
The 18 March saw George Osborne’s budget speech, heralded by Mr Osborne announcing that “Britain is walking tall again” and promising to “use whatever additional resources we have to get the deficit and the debt falling”. We examine what the drivers behind the hyperbole might mean for the insolvency community.
Further austerity as the key theme
This quarter has seen a wave of legislative and regulatory reform on the way. We review some of the more significant developments.
Insolvency exemption to the Jackson reforms extended indefinitely
On March 12, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the authority of a bankruptcy court to issue non-consensual, non-debtor releases in connection with the confirmation of a plan of reorganization.1 With this decision, the Eleventh Circuit joined the majority view that such releases are permissible under certain circumstances.
Background
On January 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered an opinion holding that an authorized UCC-3 termination statement is effective, for purposes of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), to terminate the perfection of the underlying security interest even though the secured lender never intended to extinguish the security interest and mistakenly authorized the filing.1
Background
This article provides snapshot of some of the more incidental goings-on of which we believe practitioners should be aware. Amongst other things, it covers developments in the reform of the EC Regulation, the consultation on the new-look SIP 16, and the Comet decision on the extent of the court’s S.236 powers.
EU Council adopts agreement on EC Insolvency Regulation reforms
First in the lineup, the Council of the EU agreed a compromise agreement with the EU Parliament on the proposed amendments to the EC Insolvency Regulation (Reg EC 1346/2000).
The PPF’s final levy rules for 2015/16 published at the end of last year largely confirmed the consultation drafts but included changes in some details.
We recap on what was known before the final rules came out. Then we look at the changes in the final rules.
Changes already confirmed
Insolvency scoring