The Pensions Regulator has announced, following several years of proceedings and court skirmishes, that a compromise has been reached in relation to the Financial Support Directions (FSDs) issued under the Lehman Brothers UK pension scheme.
FSDs and the Lehmans case – a reminder
On 1 August, new guidelines came into force for Member States to use in assessing whether support measures to rescue and restructure firms in difficulty are compatible with State aid rules.
In the recent case Blue Monkey Gaming v Hudson & Others the High Court held that the responsibility of identifying and proving title to goods under retention of title clause falls solely on the seller, not the administrators dealing with an insolvency.
Background
Pursuant to the issuing by the Romanian government of Government emergency ordinance no. 91/2013 on the Insolvency Code, Ordinance that has been declared unconstitutional by the Romanian Constitutional Court in October 2013, Romanian Parliament adopted a new Insolvency Law (“New Law”), maintaining some of the valuable provisions of the unconstitutional Ordinance.
Many will be familiar with the words “further advances” and associate this term with typical boiler plate provisions in finance documents.
In a recent case (In the matter of Black Ant Co Ltd (in administration) [2014] EWHC 1161 (Ch)(15 April 2014) the High Court provided useful commentary on the meaning of “further advances” in the context of the priority of security.
On 16 April 2014, the Official Gazette published Norm 5 of 2014 of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (the“FSA”) as a supplement to several regulations relating to the calculation of the re/insurer’s solvency margin, the minimum solvency margin and the safety fund (“Norm 5/2014”).
On 14 April 2014, the Official Gazette published Order 562 of 1 April 2014 for the amendment of and supplement to Order 235 of 2001 regarding the insurance of tourists against the insolvability or bankruptcy of travel agencies (“Order 562/2014”).
Unlike real estate transactions where a lender can obtain title insurance, secured lenders are often relying upon the representations and warranties in their loan agreement and the borrower’s audited financial statements, if and when determining whether the collateral securing their loans is owned by the borrower or another pledgor. After default, a lender may find itself in a precarious position whereby it is unable to foreclose on the collateral because it is not owned by its borrower and it does not have a pledge from the person that actually does own the property. According
I am delighted to present the third edition of The Issues, an annual publication brought to you by our team at CMS Prague. As is tradition, the articles will look at general legislative developments as well as new opportunities and legal issues that you will be facing in the year ahead. We also look at sector specific topics from across industries such as consumer products, energy, financial services, hotels & leisure, lifesciences, real estate and technology, media & telecoms.
Since the financial crisis, sales under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code have provided an increasingly popular way for secured creditors of distressed businesses to recover their loans. However, despite the advantages of Section 363 sales, the significant expense and time required to conduct a Bankruptcy sale has caused secured creditors to pursue less comprehensive solutions. One alternative for recouping value from a troubled loan is an Article 9 foreclosure sale under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).