The European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”) this morning delivered its ruling in the case of Hogan and Others v Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Ireland, Attorney General (the “Waterford Crystal case”). The Court held that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 EC (the “Directive”) on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer.

Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited (“DSWC”) and Michael Sullivan and Bernard Freeman (trading as ‘Satellite Services’) v Financial Services Authority

Summary

VLM Holdings Limited –v- Ravensworth Digital Services Limited [2013] EWHC 228 (Ch)

Précis – In February 2013, the High Court ruled that businesses are permitted to use software under a sub-licence if the head licensee’s business is terminated or becomes insolvent. This ruling, however, is dependent upon the “scope of authority” given to the sub-licensor by the head licensor.

What?

How will it impact on pensions?

Under the Bankruptcy Act 1988, the general rule is that all property “belonging” to a person adjudicated bankrupt on the date of adjudication vested in the Official Assignee. The extent to which this rule extended to pension assets depended on the type of pension vehicle the person being declared bankrupt participated in and the actual terms of the pension scheme or policy.

The 1988 Act has now been amended to include detailed and prescriptive provisions relating to the treatment of pension assets on bankruptcy.

On February 1, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers. By a five to two majority, the SCC allowed the appeal from the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) which had created so much uncertainty about the priority of pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.

In October 2012, The Futura Loyalty Group Inc. (“Futura”) commenced proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). On November 13, 2012, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) considered Futura’s request to permit pre-filing, prepayment obligations to its key customers.

There have been a number of recent developments regarding the current system of examinership and the legislation governing repossession and other lender’s rights. Norman Fitzgerald, Partner and Head of Eversheds’ Insolvency Group, discusses the proposed amendments and their likely impact.

Circuit Court Provisions for Examinership

Azevedo and another v Imcopa Importacao, Exportaacao E Industria De Oleos Ltda and others [2012] EWHC 1849 (Comm)

Summary

On January 27, 2012, Justice Newbould of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) released his decision in Temple (Re),1 holding that the Ontario Limitations Act, 20022 (the “Act”) does not apply to a bankruptcy application and does not operate to extinguish a debt owing to a creditor.

The Ontario Limitations Act, 2002

Introduction

Does the dissolution of a corporation that is in receivership terminate the receivership? Until the recent decision of Meta Energy Inc. v. Algatec Solarwerke Brandenberg GMBH, 2012 ONSC 175, 2012 ONSC 4873, there was no previous court decision directly on point. The answer to the question is “no.”

Background