A recent Court of Appeal decision has found that the State has failed to adequately implement EU Legislation by failing to provide a procedure to protect employees’ entitlements in the event of an informal insolvency of their employer.

Introduction

English High Court places US company into Administration

On 7 October 2016 Ashfords' Restructuring and Insolvency Team, led by partner Alan Bennett, assisted the directors in securing an Administration order in respect of Ronin Development Corporation (the "Company").

The Company was incorporated in Princeton, New Jersey, in October 1986 under the New Jersey Business Corporation Act, and is a global marketing, consulting and research company.

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal has seemingly halted a trend towards leniency in the High Court in applications for the restriction and disqualification of directors of insolvent companies, particularly where the company has been struck off the register of companies for failing to file annual returns.

The English court of appeal has held that a company should not be held to be balance sheet insolvent on the sole basis that its liabilities (including contingent and prospective liabilities) exceed its assets.

In BNY Corporate Trustee Services v Eurosail & Ors, the Court of Appeal considered in detail, for the first time, the construction of section 123 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986, which sets out circumstances in which a company can be deemed to be unable to pay its debts.

The relevant portions of section 123 provide as follows:

Ivey v Crockfords (2017 UKSC 67)

Whilst this is not a trust related case, it is an important one which may have an impact on the trust industry going forward as it sees the Supreme Court fundamentally change the test for dishonesty in English law.

Article 295 of the Jordanian Commerce Law 1966 allows a merchant on the verge of bankruptcy to avoid bankruptcy and gain protection from creditors executing judgments against the merchant by initiating a court-sponsored settlement process with the creditors (‘preventive composition’).

Year in Review - United Arab Emirates Law in 2016

In a recent judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that a party who purchases and accepts the transfer of moveable assets subject to a retention of title acquires a right of conditional ownership with respect to those moveable assets and has the power to create an unconditional right of pledge over such right of conditional ownership.

In a judgment dated 13 October 2015 in proceedings between a bank and its client the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled that the bank was allowed to terminate the credit agreement with the client on the grounds that the client had caused a reduction in the value of shares pledged to the bank.

Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 13 October 2015 (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2015:8354)

In its judgment dated 2 September 2014, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled that moveable assets obtained subject to a retention of title (eigendomsvoorbehoud) should be considered future assets, and that ownership of such assets will be acquired after satisfaction of the relevant condition precedent (typically, full payment of the purchase price). A right of pledge over future assets created in advance will not be valid if the pledgor goes bankrupt before acquiring ownership of such assets.