By order dated 20 January 2009, the Supreme Court, in the first case on examinership to come before it in over 10 years, allowed an appeal against the order of the High Court dated 13 January 2009 (McGovern J) which refused the petition of Gallium Limited (trading as the First Equity Group) (under the protection of the Court) for the appointment of an examiner and appointed Mr Kieran Wallace of KPMG as examiner of the Company. The Supreme Court delivered its reasoned judgment on 3 February 2009.
These are hard times for business. In an era of falling asset values and tight trading conditions, some firms may be facing paper losses or technical insolvency. In the fight for survival, applying for examinership is one way they can avoid being forced into a 'fire sale' of their assets. But, as Andrew Gill explains, timing is critical.
Supreme Court Judgment (ex tempore), 20 February 2009
A return of no goods (nulla bona) no longer required for issue of bankruptcy summons
A decision of the High Court, affirming a rule of practice which required a return of no goods (or a good reason for the absence of same) before it would issue a bankruptcy summons to a creditor, has been successfully appealed to the Supreme Court.
BACKGROUND
The Companies (Amendment) Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) provides the statutory framework for petitioning the High Court for the appointment of an examiner to a company and providing the company concerned with a certain level of protection from its creditors. In practice, a significant issue which often arises is the enforceability of the provisions of a guarantee in the context of an examinership. The purpose of this article is briefly to look at the enforceability of a guarantee both during the period of protection and once it ends.
DURING THE EXAMINERSHIP
Israel recently enacted a new Insolvency Law, which came into effect in September 2019. The statute substantially revises procedures and substantive rights in connection with corporate insolvency and bankruptcy. The law may allow debtor licensors more flexibility to terminate intellectual property license agreements.
Background and Analysis
The coronavirus and the resultant global crisis will most certainly have a strong impact on commercial contracts and economies throughout the world. The broad paralysis of the Israeli (and global) markets could, without a doubt, "push" a broad range of companies to the "edge of a cliff", due to the harm incurred as a result of their inability to meet their commercial obligations, such as credit terms or the provision of services or goods.
The Isle of Man case Simpson v Light House Living Ltd concerned an appeal on a successful set-off claim brought by Australian supermodel Elle Macpherson. When the bank Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Limited entered liquidation, Macpherson had £2,541,680.09 deposited in the bank in her personal capacity and potentially owed the bank over £7,801,727 pounds by way of the company Light House Living Limited.
A recent Isle of Man case, Interdevelco Limited v. Waste2energy Group Holdings plc, demonstrates that the debate around how courts should approach international insolvency legislation rages on. The decision emphasised the importance of the principle of universality, the concept that there should be one insolvency proceeding under which all creditors’ claims can be collectively assessed and administered. This approach contrasts with that taken by the Supreme Court of England and Wales in the two recent cases of Rubin v.
The Isle of Man Appeal Court (the Staff of Government Division) judgment in Spirit ofMontpelier v Lombard Manx[2015] has addressed important issues in relation to company and insolvency laws and the powers of judges to create and develop principles of common law in order to serve the interests of justice.
In Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited (in Liquidation)(1) the Manx court recently confirmed that where security for costs orders is appropriate, the amount ordered will not always be restricted to a sum representing the extra costs incurred in enforcing an order in the jurisdiction in which the claimant is resident or in which assets are situated.