During the last few years, Italian bankruptcy law has been shifting from a traditional "procedural/judicial" model, based on the central role of courts called upon to safeguard the "public interest" involved in bankruptcy by actively directing the procedure and making the most important decisions, to a model that recognizes the private interests of creditors. Under the new paradigm, creditors are conferred with decisional powers, while courts maintain a principally supervisory role.

When doing business with a Luxembourg company in financial distress, the counterpart should be aware that certain transactions are at risk.

Doing business with a bankrupt Luxembourg company

A bankrupt Luxembourg company is automatically deprived from the administration of its assets. All transactions must be entered into by the receiver in bankruptcy acting in the name and on behalf of the bankrupt company.

With the enactment of the Ley de Concursos Mercantiles (the “LCM”) in 2000, Mexico took a dramatic step towards modernizing its bankruptcy and insolvency laws. Several years later, in 2007, Mexico took additional steps by enacting a number of reforms aimed to create or clarify the legal framework regarding various important topics that were novel in Mexico, including implementation of a process to obtain approval of pre-negotiated plans.  

Global—On 26 October 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a ruling that may impact sovereign debt restructurings, upheld a lower court order enjoining Argentina from making payments on restructured defaulted debt without making comparable payments to bondholders who did not participate in the restructuring.

A facilitation payment to encourage creditors to vote through the restructuring proposals of creditors’ debts has been held by the High Court not to be an illegal bribe. The court had regard to the fact that the offer of payment was made openly to all relevant creditors, none of whom were prevented from voting on the proposal. As such, where a creditor consented and received the facilitation payment, this was not contrary to the pari passu principle.

The facts

The UK Supreme Court has recently considered the role of commercial common sense in interpreting a contract.  Rainy Sky v Kookmin Bank concerned the interpretation of bonds issued by Kookmin Bank to guarantee the return of advance payments made by six purchasers under separate shipbuilding contracts. The shipbuilder had suffered an insolvency event and the purchasers were claiming refunds of the advance payments made to the shipbuilder under the bonds. The Bank contended that the bonds did not guarantee repayment of the advances on insolvency.

Kookmin Bank v Rainy Sky SA & Others

[2011] UKSC 50

We covered this case back in Issue 120. The case has now reached the Supreme Court where the decision of the Court of Appeal was overturned. In doing so, Lord Clarke adopted the interpretation of the bond which was most consistent with business common sense.

The UK Supreme Court has recently overturned a much-criticised and controversial ruling of the Court of Appeal by finding an ambiguously worded advance payment bond effective in the case of insolvency. In doing so, it clarified the proper role and application of considerations of business common sense when interpreting commercial contracts. Where a clause is capable of two or more possible interpretations, Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank held that the court should prefer the one which is most consistent with common business sense.

Application for an administration order in respect of FM Front Door Ltd. The application followed FM’s failure to make payments under a loan from the Dunfermline Building Society obtained to assist with the purchase of flats at the Skyline development on Finniestoun Street in Glasgow.  The loan was secured by a floating charge and standard securities over each of the flats. FM’s parent company FM Developments also granted a guarantee for the loan.

Clause 13 of the loan agreement provided that the grounds for default included:

In Rainy Sky S.A and six others v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50, the Supreme Court provided useful guidance on the role of business common sense in construing a clause in a commercial contract, particularly in circumstances where there are competing plausible constructions, neither of which is clearly preferable on the language used alone.

The facts