In the last week of January, the Czech Government passed an amendment to the Insolvency Act, which was prepared by the Ministry of Justice. The aim of the amendment is to respond to the growing widespread practice of the filing of unjustified insolvency petitions by creditors. The amendment intends to allow courts to reject such petitions.
Hurstwood Properties (A) Ltd and others (Respondents) v Rossendale Borough Council and another (Appellants)
The Supreme Court has delivered its keenly anticipated judgment in a case concerning the validity of two business rates mitigation schemes. The schemes under scrutiny involved property owners letting unoccupied properties to special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”) which benefitted from a business rates exemption and therefore allowed both the property owners and the SPVs to avoid liability for business rates.
On 1 August 2020, amendments to Act XLIX of 1991 (the Insolvency Code) are scheduled to come into force, which have been designed to promote the cooperation between debtors and creditors in bankruptcies and allow for the use of electronic communications in insolvency procedures.
The key changes contained in the amendments include the following:
Pre-emption right for the Hungarian state
1.Why use an electronic signature?
2.What is e-signing?
3.Is e-signing valid?
4.What types of document can be signed electronically?
5. Are there any restrictions/protocols relating to electronic signatures?
6. What is the position with overseas entities?
7. E-signing with a secure platform
8. E-signing without a secure platform
Why use an electronic signature?
The CVA challenge
The landlords’ claim against the Debenhams CVA was put forward on five grounds:
1. Future rent is not a “debt” and so the landlords are not creditors, such that the CVA cannot bind them
REJECTED: The definition of “debt” is broad enough to include pecuniary contingent liabilities, such as future rent.
2. A CVA cannot operate to reduce rent payable under leases: it is automatically unfairly prejudicial
In Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) [2017] EWHC 3465 (Ch), the High Court ordered respondent liquidators to disclose the identity of third-party litigation funders and the terms on which funding was provided in order to facilitate an application for security of costs.
Facts
On 27 December 2016, the Board of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (“FSA”) analysed the status of the insurance and reinsurance undertaking LIG Insurance SA, ultimately, commencing bankruptcy procedures against LIG Insurance SA and withdrawing its license to carry on insurance and reinsurance activity (FSA Decision 2347/2016).
According to the FSA, on 31 October 2016 the company had: (i) negative own capital of RON 56.2 million; and (ii) a liquidity ratio of 0.44, resulting in concern over its capacity to cover its due obligations using own funds.
Introduction:
The Government has launched a new consultation on a number of technical and regulatory changes affecting pensions legislation. One of the proposed changes is to amend the entry rules in relation to the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). The consultation follows on from the recent Supreme Court decision in Olympic Airlines and the introduction of specific legislation to ensure the beneficiaries of that particular scheme received protection in circumstances where the entry rules otherwise excluded them.
The Supreme Court has held that, where a company had been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, the directors’ wrong-doing could not be attributed to the company to prevent it (or its liquidators) from bringing claims against the directors.
The legal effect of “limited recourse” arrangements have been thrown into fresh doubt by a first instance decision of the respected Mr Justice David Richards in the case of Arm Asset Backed Securities S.A. [2013] EWHC 3351.
This decision is relevant to the following common financing arrangements.