On 18 January 2017, Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 (the "Regulation") will become fully applicable. It will henceforth be possible to obtain in any EU Member State, with the exception of Denmark and the United Kingdom, a preservation order for bank accounts of a debtor situated in another Member State.
The Regulation introduces at the European level a certain degree of transparency in terms of the debtor's assets.
Earlier intervention in case of distress to preserve value and save jobs. That is the goal of the proposed 'EU Business Restructuring Directive', which was presented yesterday by the European Commission and aims to ensure a minimum harmonization of restructuring procedures within the European Union.
Under the Act of August 10 2016 modernising the Company Law 1915 (which entered into force on August 23 2016) Luxembourg law now officially recognises that companies can be wound up by means of a simplified procedure. This is an unquestionably useful tool which will further enhance Luxembourg's business-friendly reputation.
Facts
The appellant is a company trading in electrical goods which regularly supplied Edge Electrical Ltd ('Edge'). Their standard terms provided Edge with a short period of credit before payment was required.
Facts
Angove’s PTY Ltd (‘Angove’s’) is an Australian winemaker which for many years had employed D&D Wines International Ltd (‘D&D’) to distribute its products to retailers. In addition, D&D also purchased wine for itself direct from Angove’s. Their business relationship was governed by an Agency and Distribution Agreement (‘ADA’) entered in December 2011. Amongst its provisions, the ADA entitled the parties to terminate the agreement with immediate effect upon either becoming insolvent.
Facts
Mr Patel transferred Mr Mirza £620,000 to bet on shares in RBS using insider information which Mr Mirza hoped to obtain from RBS contacts. The inside information did not come through and Mr Mirza refused to return the sums to Mr Patel. Mr Patel subsequently sued Mr Mirza for recovery of the £620,000 on the
basis of unjust enrichment.
Facts
This case related to the leasehold ownership of hotel rooms. The applicants were the leaseholders of the hotel rooms and the respondent companies the lessors.
Facts
C’s appeal of his bankruptcy order failed. He then argued that pursuant to r 12.2(1) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (‘IR 12.2’) as a matter of law the costs of the unsuccessful appeal should be treated as an expense of the bankruptcy estate; alternatively they were aprovable debt in the bankruptcy. D (the PC) contended that IR 7.51A gave the court an unfettered discretion as to the form of order and sought costs against C personally as a post-bankruptcy liability.
This article was first published in Practical Law.
With the long-awaited decision of the Court of Appeal in Horton v Henry, the Looking Glass decision in Raithatha v Williamson is finally laid to rest.