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.

Shareholders who fail to intervene to stem the losses in a company they control may be held personally liable for the company’s debts if it is subsequently liquidated, according to the Supreme Court.

Under Hungarian law, a shareholder’s liability (in a limited liability company) is usually limited to their capital contribution. The corporate ‘veil’ can only be pierced (making the shareholder personally liable for the company’s debts) in special circumstances.

Share purchase agreements often include indemnities or covenants to pay designed to protect the buyer for a period after completion where some unquantifiable liability is anticipated that will impact on the value of the company being acquired. This is particularly so in the case of unpaid tax.

When a tenant goes into liquidation and its liquidator surrenders the lease what effect does this have on any obligations to remove any alterations that the tenant has made during the term and generally reinstate?  The high court has recently decided that the terms of a surrender that released both parties from rights arising “on or after, but not before, the date of this surrender” were sufficient to release the tenant from its obligations to reinstate the premises because these obligations were future obligations.

In our Law-Now of 4 April 2012 (click here for link), we reported on the decision of the court in the case of Leisure (Norwich) II Limited v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited (in administration).  The detailed judgment has now been released, setting out the rationale for the decision and summarising the position on rents in administration generally.

The legal position on this issue is now:

In a recent case, the court held that a party to a settlement agreement (in this case a broker) cannot restrict the indemnity it is providing so that the indemnity is not payable if the insured goes into administration, or liquidation, or undergoes some other insolvency event. The decision is important on its own facts. But it does also raise questions about the legitimacy of other clauses in insurance contracts which depend on whether or not the insured or reinsured has entered into any kind of insolvency event.

The Court of Appeal has considered the High Court's previous refusal to lift the automatic stay imposed by Article 20 of the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("Model Law").

The US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has dismissed a case filed under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code as the debtor's centre of main interest ("COMI") was not in the jurisdiction where the initial Liquidation was filed.

Creative Finance Ltd was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands in 1995. However the Company's main trade occurred in England, Dubai and Spain. In December 2013 the Company filed for Liquidation in the BVI, being its place of incorporation, and a Liquidator was duly appointed.

The joint liquidators of Peak Hotels & Resorts Limited ("Peak") brought an unsuccessful appeal that a legal charge held over funds paid into court ("Funds") was incapable of enforcement. The court dismissed the appeal on the basis that Peak did retain a proprietary interest over the funds.

The Facts

The case concerned an application made by the Liquidators of a BVI incorporated company, Peak Hotels and Resorts Limited ("Peak"). The application was intended to determine the effectiveness of a charge granted by Peak to Candey Limited, Peak's former solicitor.

Peak was the holding company of a joint venture vehicle that became the subject of lengthy international litigation proceedings following the breakdown of relations between the joint venture partners and shareholders. Candey acted for peak in the litigation.