On 1 August, new guidelines came into force for Member States to use in assessing whether support measures to rescue and restructure firms in difficulty are compatible with State aid rules.

In the recent case Blue Monkey Gaming v Hudson & Others the High Court held that the responsibility of identifying and proving title to goods under retention of title clause falls solely on the seller, not the administrators dealing with an insolvency.

Background

Pursuant to the issuing by the Romanian government of Government emergency ordinance no. 91/2013 on the Insolvency Code, Ordinance that has been declared unconstitutional by the Romanian Constitutional Court in October 2013, Romanian Parliament adopted a new Insolvency Law (“New Law”), maintaining some of the valuable provisions of the unconstitutional Ordinance. 

Many will be familiar with the words “further advances” and associate this term with typical boiler plate provisions in finance documents.

In a recent case (In the matter of Black Ant Co Ltd (in administration) [2014] EWHC 1161 (Ch)(15 April 2014) the High Court provided useful commentary on the meaning of “further advances” in the context of the priority of security.

On 16 April 2014, the Official Gazette published Norm 5 of 2014 of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (the“FSA”) as a supplement to several regulations relating to the calculation of the re/insurer’s solvency margin, the minimum solvency margin and the safety fund (“Norm 5/2014”).

On 14 April 2014, the Official Gazette published Order 562 of 1 April 2014 for the amendment of and supplement to Order 235 of 2001 regarding the insurance of tourists against the insolvability or bankruptcy of travel agencies (“Order 562/2014”).

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.