In the first of a two-part series, Will Pearce and Gawain Moore of Herbert Smith LLP examine some of the common tools used for, and issues that arise when, restructuring premium-listed companies.

On 16 September 2010 the UK Treasury published a consultation paper seeking views on its proposals for a new Special Administration Regime (SAR) for investment firms. The Consultation included draft regulations that will implement the SAR (the Draft Regulations).

The Consultation was prompted by the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2008 which posed (and continues to pose) serious challenges for insolvency regimes around the world.

In the wake of the high profile financial problems affecting the Dubai World group, the Dubai government has announced a new reorganisation law in case that group is unable to achieve an acceptable restructuring of its debts. New legislation was needed because the status of Dubai World as a company incorporated under special legislation means that the UAE insolvency laws do not apply to it. The new legislation:

In August we reported that the Court of Appeal had expressed doubts as to whether the EAT in Oakland v Wellswood was right to suggest that pre-pack administrations could be insolvencies "begun with a view to liquidation" (so that TUPE does not apply to transfer employees).

Following the House of Lords' decision in Melville Dundas in April, the TCC has now decided in the case of Pierce Design v Johnston on 17 July that the case has a wide application - but unreasonable failure to pay may still be penalised.

The decision of the House of Lords in Melville Dundas in April resolved a tension between the payment provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 ("the Act") and contractual clauses applying to payments after termination of building contracts.

The Court of Appeal has held that a settlement agreement, in which the defendant acknowledged that a debt was payable in full and agreed the mechanics and timing of payments, had the effect of excluding the defendant’s right of equitable set-off: IG Index Ltd v Ehrentreu [2013] EWCA Civ 95. The claimant was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the debt. The defendant however remained free to pursue his cross-claim for damages against the claimant.

This is the twenty-ninth in our series of General Counsel Updates which aim to summarise major developments in key areas.

In our October 2010 edition of Middle East Exchange, we looked at the general duties which directors and managers of UAE companies owe to their companies and their shareholders. In this edition, we consider the position where the company's financial position deteriorates. As directors or managers struggle with the inevitable commercial and operational pressures, what additional legal responsibilities and potential liabilities does UAE law place upon them?

Under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006, it is open to a solvent company to enter into an arrangement or compromise with its creditors or members. Over the past 10-15 years such solvent schemes have been implemented in M&A and restructuring transactions and have proved increasingly popular in the insurance market, permitting insurers to crystallise their contingent liabilities.

Introduction

The New South Wales Supreme Court has found a solicitor liable for facilitating unlawful ‘phoenix’ activity.1 Phoenix activity consists of transferring business assets out of an old debt-laden company (which subsequently goes into liquidation) to a new debt free company. The new company carries on the business of the old company; but the assets are put beyond the reach of the creditors of the old company.