Under European law, there are no general rules whit respect to the liability of a holding company for the debts of its insolvent subsidiary.

The Council Regulation (EC) N° 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings only provides for a common framework for insolvency proceedings in the European Union (EU). The harmonised rules on insolvency proceedings intend to prevent assets or judicial proceedings being transferred from one EU country to another for the purposes of obtaining a more favourable legal position to the detriment of creditors (“forum shopping”).

Through its decision of 27 November 2008, the Belgian Constitutional Court declared netting arrangements in insolvency proceedings, which are explicitly allowed under the Belgian Financial Collateral Law of 15 December 2004, unconstitutional where such netting arrangements apply to non-merchants. Despite the numerous criticisms about this decision, the amended Belgian Financial Collateral Law, entered into force on 10 November 2011, now explicitly excludes non-merchants from its scope.

In recent years, several foreign companies have used the English law scheme of arrangement as a flexible restructuring method to compromise creditor claims.  The decision of the High Court in the latest of these cases, that of the German company Rodenstock GmbH, clarifies that an English court will accept jurisdiction where the only connection to England is that the company’s finance documents were governed by English law.

One of the many issues which arose from the collapse of Lehman Brothers was whether “flip provisions”, which reverse a swap counterparty’s priority in the order of payment on insolvency, were invalid on the basis that they contravened the anti-deprivation principle.  This is a long-established common law principle which seeks to prevent an insolvent party from arranging its affairs to frustrate the legitimate claims of creditors.

On 5 October 2011 Justice Barrett of the Supreme Court of NSW handed down a decision in Centro Retail Limited and Centro MCS Manager Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity of the Centro Retail Trust [2011] NSWSC 1175 (“Centro”) where he found that the responsible entity of Centro Retail Trust would be justified in modifying the constitution of the trust without unitholder approval to a insert a provision permitting the issue of units at a price different to that provided for by the pre-existing provisions.

Over the past few months there have been a number of insurance portfolio transfers and a winding up of a general insurer.  Various judges of the Federal Court have considered aspects of the Insurance Act (Cth) 1973.

Portfolio transfers

There have been two scheme transfers of insurance portfolios from Australian branches of overseas insurers to Australian subsidiaries.  While objections to the transfers were raised, the Federal Court confirmed the schemes.

Amaca Pty Ltd v McGrath & Anor as liquidators of HIH Underwriting and Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 90