Banking & Finance Banking & Finance Dezember / December 2016 4 | Editorial Fokus 6 | Verschärfung der Regulierung auf dem sog. Zweitmarkt – Anlageberatung und -vermittlung von Vermögensanlagen ab 2017 KWG-erlaubnispflichtig 8 | Anforderungen an ein schlüssiges Sanierungskonzept zur Verhinderung einer Insolvenzanfechtung aus Sicht der Gläubiger Aufsichtsrecht 10 | Zusätzliche Anforderungen an die Ausgestaltung einer Limitation Language aufgrund des Asset-Stripping-Verbots gemäß § 292 Kapitalanlagegesetzbuch (KAGB)?
OLG Naumburg verneint Haftung der Organe eines insolventen Zeitarbeitsunternehmens gegenüber den Einzugsstellen.
Bislang ist von der Rechtsprechung nicht abschließend geklärt, ob eine persönliche Haftung der Organe eines Zeitarbeitsunternehmens wie der Geschäftsführung gegenüber den Einzugsstellen in Betracht kommt.
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.
1. Introduction
The Insolvency Rules 2016 (“the 2016 Rules”) were published and laid before parliament on 25 October 2016. The rules will come in to force on 6 April 2017. The following note summarises the key features of the rules. For further detail the reader is referred to the following sources: