Background

Until recently Russian legislation was not familiar with the concept of close-out netting. Although there was no prohibition for market participants to enter into netting agreements, Russian courts would not enforce such agreements in case of bankruptcy. This led to the use of complex structures to avoid the negative consequences of the application of Russian law and was a strong argument in favor of using foreign entities and application of foreign law to derivative transactions.

In Clare Horwood & Others v Land of Leather Limited (In Administration) and Zurich Insurance Plc the Commercial Court was asked to consider in the context of a claim under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 whether a compromise agreement entered into by an insured without the insurer's specific instructions in writing was in breach of a policy term. Under the compromise agreement, the insured had released a third party from an obligation to indemnify it in respect of various personal injury claims.

The story of the Silentnight restructuring has featured in the press today. There have been calls for the Pensions Regulator to use its anti-avoidance powers under the Pensions Act 2004 to compel HIG Europe to pay more towards the considerable deficit of the Silentnight Pension Scheme, following the purchase of Silentnight out of administration by the private equity firm last Saturday. Earlier this year, Silentnight had failed to obtain the PPF's approval to a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement aimed at addressing its historic debt, including a pensions deficit of around £100m.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a stern warning to professional services providers regarding “tail fees,” establishing a presumption of unreasonableness against contract terms requiring fees not attached to tangible, identifiable and material benefits to the debtor’s estate.