A recent Court of Appeal decision has criticised obiter comments made by the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale to the effect that adjudication decisions in favour of companies in liquidation could in certain circumstances, and with appropriate safeguards, be enforced by way of summary judgment. The Court of Appeal has indicated that such an approach would be at odds with the mandatory right of set-off arising under the Insolvency Rules. The Court of Appeal’s comments in this respect are themselves obiter and will give rise to uncertainty in this area of the law.

On October 21, 2021, the Italian Parliament has definitively approved the conversion into law of Law Decree no. 118/2021, introducing "urgent measures concerning company crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures on justice" (the "Decree").

On October 21, 2021, the Italian Parliament has definitively approved the conversion into law of Law Decree no. 118/2021, introducing "urgent measures concerning company crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures on justice" (the "Decree").

Whilst this article has been in the pipeline for some time, the timing of its publication is somewhat apt following the administration of NMCN Plc on 4 October 2021. DWF wishes all those NMCN employees well and hope that they find alternative employment soon. We also hope that the direct and indirect consequences of the administration are not too harshly or widely felt amongst other colleagues in the industry.

The High Court has set out the principles that apply to the construction of questions in an insurer’s automated online underwriting system and the circumstances in which an insurer’s questions may lead to waiver of the right to be told about certain information. In this case, the Court considered the construction and scope of the insurer’s standard question concerning previous insolvencies, and held that the wording used waived the insurer’s right to be told about other insolvency events not caught by the question.

Background

Italian bankruptcy law: the new provisions brought by Law Decree No. 118/2021 and the so called "negotiated settlement procedure" aimed at solving business crises.

In order to support businesses to face with the economic and financial crisis caused by SARS-Cov-2 emergency, the Law Decree No. 118 of 24 August 2021 has introduced "urgent measures concerning company crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures on justice" (the "Law Decree No. 118/2021").

Mr Justice Zacaroli has handed down his judgment in Hurricane Energy plc [2021] EWHC 1759 (Ch).

Summary

• The Court declined to approve the cross-class cram down of Hurricane’s shareholders as part of the Part 26A restructuring plan because the available evidence did not demonstrate that the shareholders were “no worse off” as a result of the restructuring plan. On that basis the restructuring plan failed.

Hungary has passed an Act that implements EU Directive 2019/1023 on preventive restructuring frameworks, the discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt (amending EU Directive 2017/1132). This new Act was published in Hungary's Official Gazette on 3 June 2021 and will come into force on 1 July 2022.

The Court (Mr Justice Miles) has refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement (the “Scheme”) between ALL Scheme Limited (the “Company”) and its creditors. The Company is an entity within the Amigo group of companies (the “Group”).

Mr Justice Zacaroli has handed down his judgment in Carroway Guildford (Nominee A) Limited and 18 others and (1) Regis UK Limited, (2) Edward Williams (as Joint Supervisor of Regis UK Ltd) and (3) Christine Mary Laverty (as Joint Supervisor of Regis UK Ltd) [2021] EWHC 1294 (Ch) following his decision in the New Look challenge last week.

Summary

Hurstwood Properties (A) Ltd and others (Respondents) v Rossendale Borough Council and another (Appellants)

The Supreme Court has delivered its keenly anticipated judgment in a case concerning the validity of two business rates mitigation schemes. The schemes under scrutiny involved property owners letting unoccupied properties to special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”) which benefitted from a business rates exemption and therefore allowed both the property owners and the SPVs to avoid liability for business rates.