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:

This recent decision on a jurisdictional challenge has provided greater clarity and potentially created a tortious cause of action where a debtor dissipates assets prior to judgment and subsequent freezing order.

Background

Legend International Holdings Inc (in Liquidation) v Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited [2016] VSCA 151

The Australian Court of Appeal refused an appeal against a winding up order made in relation to Legend in Australia where Chapter 11 proceedings were on foot in the United States.

Click here to read more...

The UK Commercial Court has dismissed the Claimant's application for a stay under Article 28 of the Judgments Regulation.

Short stories

Amendments to the Czech Insolvency Act 2016

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").