We have become used to a regular stream of decisions in which the courts are prepared to grant administration or winding up orders in respect of overseas companies which have COMI or an establishment in the UK. The decision inRe Buccament Bay Limited and another [2014] EWCH 3130 is a rare exception in which the court has refused to exercise its discretion.

The background

The PPF is going ahead with the new insolvency scoring system developed by Experian.

It is also raising its requirements for contingent asset guarantees.

Partnerships which are breaking up face a series of urgent problems – particularly where the business itself is becoming insolvent. These difficulties can be amplified by failing relationships between the partners (who have to work together to wind up the business) and the potential need to realise assets rapidly to stave off the appointment of liquidators.

Heads of Terms’ or ‘Memoranda of Agreement’ (“MoA”) are commonly agreed by parties as a precursor to entering into more substantial agreements.

MoA are often intended by the parties to be broad statement  of commercial intent to enter into a contract, rather than having contractual force themselves. Accordingly, MoA are often drafted with a more relaxed attitude towards their contents

However, no matter what the parties may have intended, a MoA can easily amount to a contract depending on its drafting, exposing the parties to unintended liabilities.

In Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Hellas Telecom., S.A.R.L., 2014 NY Slip Op 24268 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2014), the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled on two important issues related to the right to sue for recovery with respect to notes issued under indentures. First, the court held that assignments of a right of collection, but not title to the claims or the note itself, are insufficient as a matter of New York law to confer standing upon an assignee to sue for recovery on a defaulted note.

The recent unreported decision of the Bristol District Registry of the High Court in Blue Monkey Gaming Limited v Hudson & Others [2-14] All ER (D) 222 provides useful guidance for insolvency practitioners on the extent of their duties in respect of identification and preservation of ROT stock.

What was the case about?

The practice of energy companies in insolvency situations has long been a cause for frustration: in most cases the supplier will terminate the existing supply contract and a new - deemed - statutory contract at much higher rates will then apply.

After six years of legal action and investigations, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) has agreed a £184 million settlement with PwC, administrators for the Lehman Brothers Group, which has secured members' benefits under the UK pension scheme.  It also means the scheme will not go into the Pension Protection Fund (PPF).

Following the insolvency of the Lehman group in 2008, TPR began regulatory action in 2010 seeking the issue of a Financial Support Direction (FSD) to certain UK group companies.  An FSD requires recipients to provide extra financial support to a scheme.

On June 20, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ritchie v. Rupe, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 500 (Tex. 2014). In Ritchie, a minority shareholder in a closely held corporation attempted to force the majority shareholders to buy-out the minority shareholder’s interest in the corporation by bringing a claim of shareholder oppression under § 11.404 of the Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC), the Texas receivership statute.

This update considers the recent High Court decision in Thomasand Another v Edmondson (12/05.2014) concerning the court’s ability to make an income payment order against a bankrupt who is already subject to an income payment agreement.

The background