Background

Article 4.1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings (the "Regulation") states: "Save as otherwise provided in this Regulation, the law applicable to insolvency proceedings and their effects shall be that of the Member State within the territory of which such proceedings are opened..."

Article 4.2 of the Regulation sets out a non-exhaustive list of the matters which the law of the state of the opening of insolvency proceedings is to determine, including:

The government has clarified which claims will benefit from the continued recoverability of CFA success fees and ATE insurance premiums, following its announcement in May last year that there would be a two-year delay to implementation of this aspect of the Jackson reforms for “insolvency proceedings” (see post).

The story of the restructuring of carpet-maker, Brintons has featured in the press recently, with emphasis on the role of Carlyle, one of the world's biggest private equity firms. The facts are similar to the Silentnight pre-pack which we featured in a previous bulletin. In each case, the Pensions Regulator is said to be considering using its anti-avoidance powers under the Pensions Act 2004 to compel senior debt holders to pay towards the deficit of the defined benefit pension scheme operated by the company.

In brief

It is likely that changes to the employer debt regulations (the so-called "section 75 debt" regime) will come into force on 6 April. These will prevent a debt from arising on certain internal group restructurings where there is no weakening of the employer covenant. However, the regulations are highly prescriptive and are, therefore, less attractive as a means of dealing with section 75 debts when compared to apportionment or withdrawal arrangements.

In Butters and ors v BBC Worldwide Ltd and ors, decided on 20 August 2009, the Court held that contractual provisions in a joint venture agreement taken together with termination provisions in a licence of IP rights were void since the effect of those provisions on insolvency was to deprive creditors access to assets and therefore contrary to public policy in the light of insolvency laws.

BUSINESS IMPACT

In a recent decision, the High Court held that legal advice taken in relation to certain transactions was not protected by privilege, as there was prima facie evidence that the purpose of the advice was to structure the transactions in a way that avoided the client’s liability to pay local authority care charges and/or as a transaction defrauding creditors: London Borough of Brent v Kane [2014] EWHC 4564 (Ch).

Independent experts have become increasingly nervous on independence and process points since the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) required a replacement independent expert in Billabong, apparently based on independence concerns raised by ASIC in that case.

Act 38/2011, of 10 October, which reforms the former Spanish Insolvency Act, introduces a number of measures, including the possibility of obtaining court approval for refinancing agreements meeting certain requirements to extend the agreed debt rescheduling to certain creditors that have either opposed the refinancing agreement (i.e. dissident creditors), or that have not participated in it.

Additional Provision 4 of the Insolvency Act establishes that court approval for refinancing agreements may be sought by the debtor if they meet the following conditions:

The Court of Appeal has held that a settlement agreement between a bank and a group of companies which included releases of the parties’ affiliates prevented the companies from later pursuing claims against their own affiliates. Those affiliates were held to include former administrators appointed by the bank and the administrators’ solicitors: Schofield v Smith [2022] EWCA Civ 824.