Scope 

The recast EIR continues to apply to all European member states other than Denmark and has been extended in scope to new categories of proceedings, including rehabilitation proceedings, which are set out in annex A. The emphasis remains on collective proceedings and, consequently, the UK’s receivership and administrative receivership regimes remain outside the scope of the recast regulation. 

The recent case of Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch) (Singularis) is an important decision affecting any institution that handles client payments, including banks. It decided that a stock broker was liable in negligence for having breached its duty of care to its customer, Singularis Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (Singularis), by paying monies out of its client account on the instruction of one of Singularis' directors and its only shareholder, Mr Al Sanea.

Background

The use of pre-packs or pre-positioned asset sales in Australia has traditionally been limited. This is a result of impediments to such transactions under the Australian legislative insolvency regime.

The interplay of these impeding factors means that there are few true pre-pack transactions in Australia. However, significant reform to the Australian insolvency regime is expected to be implemented in 2017. We wrote about the main aspects of that reform in our last article, `Australian insolvency law reforms aim to increase business restructuring opportunities'

The liability regime under Section 64 sentence 1 GmbHG and Sections 92 para. 2, 93 para. 3 Nr. 6 AktG for payments made after the company’s insolvency imposes severe personal liability risk on the management of limited liability companies and stock corporations. This does not only apply to the management of German limited liability companies (“GmbH”) and stock corporations (“AG”) but also to companies incorporated under foreign law that have their centre of main interest in Germany, as the European Court of Justice has decided just recently.

In Austcorp Project Number 20 Pty Ltd v The Trust Co (PTAL) Limited, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2015] FCA 850, the Federal Court of Australia had to determine whether to dismiss the proceedings for failure to comply with previous orders for security for costs, or vary those orders for security. The basis upon which the Court made the orders for security in the first place is set out in Austcorp Project Number 20 Pty Ltd v LM Investment Management Ltd [2014] FCA 1371, and was canvassed in an ear

On September 26, 2014, in the Farnum case (Krys v. Farnum Place, LLC (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.), 768 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2014)) the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Bankruptcy Code section 363 review applied to a transfer of a Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) claim held by an off-shore entity in foreign liquidation proceedings recognized in the United States. The decision is significant for two reasons.

No extraterritorial application for Bankruptcy Code rules for recovering avoided transfers. A US District Court held that Bankruptcy Code Section 550(a), which allows a trustee to recover “property transferred to the extent that a transfer is avoided” under one of the Bankruptcy Code avoidance provisions, does not apply extraterritorially. The Securities Investor Protection Act trustee for Madoff securities sought to use Section 550(a) to recover assets transferred by foreign feeder funds abroad to their foreign customers.

As we previously reported, the Quebec government last month issued an omnibus cleanup order respecting the Lac-Mégantic disaster, including orders of questionable validity against shareholders of parties which may bear primary responsibility.

The UK Government has announced changes to the regime for winding-up petitions. With effect from 1 October 2021, some of the protections currently afforded to businesses against aggressive debt recovery action are being phased out.

The changes are intended to avoid a 'cliff edge' for debtor companies when the current measures lapse at the end of September 2021, and have a tapering effect to avoid the flood of winding-up petitions that might otherwise be expected.

What are the current restrictions (in place until 30 September 2021)?

By judgment of 26 January 2021 (docket number: 3 AZR 878/16, 3 AZR 878/17) the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht – BAG) has ruled that the acquirer of an insolvent company is only liable for vested entitlements and claims to occupational pension that had been earned after the opening of insolvency proceedings. He is not liable for the pension based on periods before, even if the German Insolvency Protection Fund (PSV) does not fully cover this part of the pension.

Facts / Background: