Summary

On 12 May 2015, the English High Court provided guidance on the interpretation of the Loss provision under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement in its judgment in Fondazione Enasarco v Lehman Brothers Finance S.A. and another [2014] EWHC 34 (Ch). The judgment will be of interest to participants in the derivatives markets as it provides:

The past eighteen months have seen a marked increase in the use of the Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”) by retailers to reduce their lease liabilities and win the release of onerous parent company guarantees, with several high street names going through the process. Although this practice received cautious support from landlords, real concern continues to be voiced over the practice of “guarantee stripping”.

According to a ruling of the High Court, Financial Support Directions and Contribution Notices issued by the Pensions Regulator once an English insolvency process has commenced rank as expenses of the insolvency process (and therefore take precedence over ordinary creditors). This ruling will cause huge practical difficulties for insolvency practitioners. The decision is subject to appeal.

An administrators’ appointment automatically ends after one year, unless steps are taken to extend it. The Enterprise Act introduced a new streamlined process for moving quickly and easily from administration to creditors’ voluntary liquidation, just by filing a notice at Companies House under para 83(3) Sch B1 of the Insolvency Act (IA)1986. Problems have arisen where that notice has been filed very late in the day and not received before the administrators’ term of office automatically ends.

The recent English High Court decision in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch)has conflicted with the earlier decision in Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWCA Civ. 799 and leaves the law unclear as to whether a debtor’s pension forms part of their bankruptcy estate.

A trustee in bankruptcy’s entitlement to seek an income payments order (“IPO”) in respect of a bankrupt’s income is governed by section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”). Under section 310(7) of the IA the income of a bankrupt:

A recent English High Court decision has further clarified the position on what amounts to an “abuse of process” when it comes to determining the motive behind the presentation of a winding up petition by a creditor. The High Court has ruled that only where a petition is issued for a purpose other than to ensure the equitable winding-up of a debtor company can it be considered an “abuse of process”, and goes on to outline what may constitute such an abuse.

The English High Court has again considered whether by itself the choice of English law and court jurisdiction in legal documentation establishes a “sufficient connection” with England to enable a foreign company to avail itself of an English scheme of arrangement.

Background

During contract negotiations parties usually agree what law and which courts will determine any disputes arising from that contract. This brings certainty for the parties. However that certainty can vanish if one party is a foreign registered company and becomes insolvent – the other party may suddenly become exposed to unexpected foreign insolvency law. At this point, the drafting of a jurisdiction clause can be worth millions.

This is the situation in the recent case of Global Maritime Investments Cyprus Limited v O.W. Supply & Trading A/S [2015] EWHC 2690 (Comm).

The English High Court has, in one of the few successful cases on wrongful trading, clarified when directors ought to know that there is no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation and where the burden of proof lies in such cases.

Background

In a judgment given on 25 January, the European Court of Justice has ruled in case C278-05 - Robins and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2007) that the UK Government failed adequately to implement a European Insolvency Directive dating back to the 1980’s, which was designed to safeguard pension scheme members’ benefits in the event that their employers became insolvent. However, the ECJ also went on to rule that the United Kingdom Government need not necessarily fund the lost pension rights in full or in part.