On 14 November 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a judgment on jurisdiction for avoidance actions under the previous Insolvency Regulation.
In its decision of 12 February 2009, the Court had already established that the courts of the Member State with jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings are competent for all the actions directly related to the insolvency.
Key points
To attribute a director’s fraud to a company, the company must be a one-man company
A one-man company requires no innocent directors or shareholders
The Facts
Singularis Holdings Ltd (the “Company“) was set up to deal with the personal assets of Mr Al Sanea. Mr Sanea was at all the times the sole shareholder of the Company, though he was only one of a number of directors of the Company.
Key points
Information obtained by compulsion can be shared between officeholders of connected estates (parent/subsidiary)
There must, however, be a possibility that there will be a surplus in the subsidiary estate
The prospect must be real as opposed to fanciful
The facts
In Rushbrooke UK Ltd (the Company) v Designs Concept Ltd (Designs) [2022] EWHC 1110 (Ch), the Court struck out injunction proceedings to restrain the presentation of a winding up petition as the instructing director did not have Company authority.
Background
On 21 December 2021, the UK government launched the future of insolvency regulation consultation, proposing significant changes to insolvency regulation which it says 'has not kept pace with developments in the insolvency market.'
The High Court recently dismissed a landlord creditor's application to overturn a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) initiated by coffee shop chain Caffé Nero. Here, we recap the key facts of the case and summarise the highlights of the High Court's ruling.
The facts
In November 2020, Caffé Nero – hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic – proposed a CVA to creditors to compromise rent arrears (at 30p in the £1) and reduce future rents for the company's premises.
Dutch football club ADO Den Haag has filed for WHOA proceedings after its major shareholder failed to pay €2 million due to the club, leaving it unable to meet its financial obligations.
The decision
Until recently, an appeal to enter debt restructuring in proceedings opposing a bankruptcy order was not allowed by the Dutch lower courts. In a ground-breaking ruling on 26 March 2021, the Dutch Supreme Court (ECLI:NL:HR:2021:460) put an end to this practice.
The case
On 11 February 2021, the English High Court confirmed in gategroup Guarantee Limited that restructuring plans are insolvency proceedings so are not covered by the Lugano Convention.
One of the debt instruments subject to the gategroup restructuring plan contains an exclusive Swiss court jurisdiction clause. Under the Lugano Convention, proceedings relating to "civil and commercial matters" must generally be brought in the jurisdiction benefitting from the exclusive jurisdiction clause.
A draft bill published on 19 September 2020 intends to further develop the existing restructuring and insolvency law in Germany.
It includes fundamental amendments to German insolvency and restructuring law to stabilise the restructuring of businesses. It also ratifies the Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Counsel 20 June 2019 on restructuring and insolvency into German national law. The draft bill will come into force on 1 January 2021.
What does this mean for debtors and creditors?