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).

One of the significant changes to distributions in insolvency made by the Enterprise Act 2002 was the abolition of the preferential status of debts owed to the Crown and the introduction of a provision for the creation of a ‘ring-fenced fund’ (also known as the “prescribed part”, an amount currently capped at £600,000) from the proceeds of floating charges created after 15 September 2003 to be applied in distribution to unsecured creditors.

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

Re Trident Fashions PLC: Exeter City Council v Bairstow [2007] EWHC 400 (Ch)

In March 2007 the High Court ruled that that non-domestic rates are payable as an expense of the administration as a “necessary disbursement” under Rule 2.67(1)(f) Insolvency Rules 1986 (IR), in priority to payment of the administrator’s remuneration.

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

Re Powerhouse Limited: Prudential Assurance Company Limited v PRG Powerhouse Limited [2007] EWHC 1002 Ch Guarantees are widely used in commercial transactions to provide assurance to creditors that debts or other obligations owed to them are discharged fully in the event the principal debtor fails to perform. This assurance was shaken by the steps taken in early 2006 by PRG Powerhouse Limited (Powerhouse) to enter into a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) that contained proposals to release certain parent company guarantees given to landlords of premises being vacated by Powerhouse.

Dealing with subject access requests (“SAR”s) under the Data Protection Act 1998 is becoming a regular occurrence for many organisations, particularly banks and their advisors.  Processing such requests can take up significant manpower and the costs can be substantial.  Whilst designed to allow individuals to access personal data, determine its source, why it is held and who it is shared with, in reality SARs are frequently being used as a fishing exercise for prospective litigation and complaints against institutions such as banks.  The recent case of 

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.

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:

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.