German Insolvency Law

an overview.

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL Plc & others [2011] EWCA Civ 227

The Court of Appeal has allowed companies around the country to breathe a solvent sigh of relief, as it has held that the so-called “balance sheet” test of insolvency in s123(2) Insolvency Act 1996 is intended to apply where a company has reached a “point of no return” rather than being used as a “mechanistic, even artificial, reason for permitting a creditor to present a petition to wind up a company”.  

Did you know that a scheme of arrangement can be used to reduce the creditor constituency in a liquidation, so that time and costs can be saved for the benefit of all parties?

The Honourable Mr. Justice Ng of the Hong Kong High Court made an Order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement (Scheme) proposed by the Joint and Several Liquidators (Liquidators) of Lehman Brothers Asia Holdings Limited (LBAH) to be implemented between LBAH and certain of its unsecured creditors (Scheme Creditors).

On 18 January 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) issued an interim final rule (the “Rule”) with request for comments regarding certain provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd- Frank Act”). Title II creates the Orderly Liquidation Authority (“OLA”), which is a mechanism under which “covered financial companies” can be liquidated in a uniform fashion rather than under inconsistent insolvency regimes.

Generally with a winding-up petition, if the petitioner is successful in obtaining a winding-up order, the petitioner will have its costs of the  proceedings. If, on the other hand, the petition is dismissed, then the petitioner has been  unsuccessful and it should pay the costs of the proceedings. We explore the Companies Court’s  treatment of costs in three recent decisions below.

From what Assets should a Petitioner have its Costs?

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has announced that the agenda for its board meeting next Tuesday, January 18, 2011, will include discussion regarding a “Final Rule Implementing Certain Orderly Liquidation Authority Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act.”

Under Hong Kong law, the courts’ jurisdiction is ordinarily territorial in nature. A plaintiff or applicant has to obtain permission (“leave”) of the court before it can validly serve a writ or other document initiating a legal action on a defendant or respondent located outside Hong Kong. For actions begun by writ, the procedures and criteria for applications for leave in this respect are set out under Order 11 of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”).

The insolvency proceedings of the Lehman Brothers' group of companies worldwide ("Group") are among the most complicated ones we have seen. A significant factor contributing to the complexity is that many Group entities hold segregated assets (principally securities and funds) for their clients, which may be individuals or entities within or outside the Group.

On a recent Mayer Brown JSM application (on behalf  of the Liquidators of one of the Lehman Brothers  entities) to reduce and expunge proofs of debt, the  Hong Kong High Court has ruled that creditors who  receive an overpayment of dividends due in respect of  a proof of debt which has been “improperly  admitted” (rule 96, Companies Winding-Up Rules)  must give credit for those overpayments before  receiving further dividends in the liquidation (Re  Lehman Brothers Commercial Corp Asia Ltd (“LBCCA”) [2014] HKEC 849) (“Proof Appl

The Court of Appeal1 has ruled that foreign judgments in insolvency proceedings may be enforced by the English courts at common law, and that the ordinary principles which may prevent the enforcement of foreign judgments do not apply to insolvency judgments where the action from which the foreign judgment arises is integral to the collective nature of the insolvency proceedings.

Facts