I am delighted to present the third edition of The Issues, an annual publication brought to you by our team at CMS Prague. As is tradition, the articles will look at general legislative developments as well as new opportunities and legal issues that you will be facing in the year ahead. We also look at sector specific topics from across industries such as consumer products, energy, financial services, hotels & leisure, lifesciences, real estate and technology, media & telecoms.

Parties wishing to resist the enforcement of an adjudication decision on the grounds of insolvency usually need to show that the claiming party will not be in a position to repay the amount of the decision if required to do so in later court or arbitration proceedings. Two recent cases in the TCC have, however, shown that different considerations can apply in the less typical circumstances of a members’ voluntary liquidation and a creditors voluntary arrangement.

Maguire & Co v Mar City Developments

The legal effect of “limited recourse” arrangements have been thrown into fresh doubt by a first instance decision of the respected Mr Justice David Richards in the case of Arm Asset Backed Securities S.A. [2013] EWHC 3351.

This decision is relevant to the following common financing arrangements.

The Court of Appeal gave judgment today (15 November 2013) in favour of licensed insolvency practitioner Andrew Hosking (D), unanimously upholding a strike out judgment of Peter Smith J made on 22 February 2013. 

Stephen Hunt, liquidator of Ovenden Colbert Printers Limited (“OCP”), had sued D and 8 other defendants.  His claim against D was brought pursuant to sections 238 and 241 Insolvency Act 1986.  He alleged that D had received or benefited from payments made by OCP which constituted transactions at an undervalue. 

The Court of Appeal judgment in Crystal Palace FC Ltd v Kavanagh and others brings welcome news for administrators and businesses in administration. The Court of Appeal has overturned the EAT and held that the dismissals of some of the football club’s staff were made for an economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reason and so liability did not pass under TUPE to the new owners of the Club, making it easier for them to operate it as a going concern.

The Romanian government has adopted, by means of Government emergency ordinance no. 91, the Insolvency Code. The Code gathers and amends all pre-insolvency and insolvency provisions in Romanian legislation relating to companies, groups of companies, credit institutions, insurance and reinsurance companies, as well as cross-border insolvency proceedings. It will enter into force on October 25, 2013 and will also apply to already ongoing insolvency proceedings.

Two recent cases (Torre Asset Funding Limited & anr v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2013] EWHC 2670 (Ch) and Grupo Hotelero Urvasco S.A. v Carey Value Added S.L.

The Supreme Court has handed down its highly anticipated judgment in the joint Nortel Networks/Lehman Brothers appeal.  The administrators of Nortel and Lehman Brothers entities had appealed against the Court of Appeal’s decision that Financial Support Directions (FSDs) issued by the Pensions Regulator (“the Regulator”) after the appointment of administrators attracted priority status as an administration expense.  Rejecting the decision of the lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled that an FSD issued during the course of an administration will rank as a provable debt rather than a

a) Introduction

The Romanian Government has enacted Government Emergency Ordinance no. 46/2013 on financial crisis and insolvency procedure of administrative units (counties, municipalities and communes) (“GEO no. 46/2013”), which entered into force on 24 May 2013. Such enactment was an obligation undertaken by Romania towards the International Monetary Fund as part of a Stand-By Arrangement dating from 2012.

The uncertainty continues. Over the past few years, the published guidance from HMRC has given rise to doubts as to the tax treatment of debt-for-equity swaps. Whether the current legislation has supported HMRC’s position is debatable but it now appears that HMRC would like to have the legislation amended to more closely reflect its views.