A group of senior lenders to European Directories SA, a Macquarie Group Ltd affiliate, have succeeded on their appeal to the English Court of Appeal in litigation with European Directories' mezzanine lenders over a €2billion loan restructuring plan for the company.

In January we posted on the impact of a case that ruled that landlords are able to claim rent as an expense of the administration when a tenant’s administrators are in occupation of all or part of a leasehold property.

Commercial sellers need to be particularly careful when purporting to sell property with vacant possession. In a recent case, Area Estates Limited v Weir (2010), Area Estates tried to sell a site to Weir, telling Weir that Area’s former tenant had surrendered its lease, so that Area could sell with vacant possession.

The Limitation Act 1980 prescribes various periods of time in which a claim must be brought. In the event that this is not undertaken within the specified period, the cause of action will be statute barred and as such unenforceable.

In the case of a simple contract, the period is six years and in general begins to run from the date on which the cause of action accrued. In order to 'stop the clock', proceedings (a claim) will have to be brought.

Knowing how much money you owe and are owed is critical when considering disputes with other parties. You need to consider whether a right of set-off exists between you and the other party.

When a company goes into administration, time does not stop running against its creditors' claims for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980. This is different to where a company goes into liquidation as time does then stop running. The effect there is that the claim stays live whereas in an administration, once the limitation period has expired, the claim is time-barred.

The underlying policy of the Insolvency Act 1986 is that all assets of an insolvent organisation must be made available for distribution amongst its creditors. However, the courts also have the power to prevent parties from contracting out of the statutory regime. This long established common law principle known as the anti-deprivation principle has been used by the courts over the years to strike down contractual provisions which attempt to do just that. The principle has received an airing in two recent High Court decisions.

The law has for years tried to grapple with the Gordian Knot between protecting a debtor’s assets for realisation and distribution to his creditors and protecting third parties who enter into transactions with the debtor after the bankruptcy process has been initiated, completely unaware of that process.

In the case of Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2010] EWCA Civ 895, [2010] All ER (D) 358 (Jul), the English Court of Appeal, Civil Division, determined that a U.S. bankruptcy court’s monetary default judgment obtained against Eurofinance and its principals, British citizens, was enforceable. In doing so, the Court of Appeal favored a “universal” approach to international bankruptcy cases and recognized adversary proceedings as part and parcel of the main bankruptcy case under American bankruptcy rules.

It is reported in the press that the PWC administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) Limited (LBIE), the London-based arm of the Lehman bank, are to appeal the recent Court of Appeal ruling relating to the distribution of segregated client funds. The first instance judge held that those clients of LBIE whose funds should have been segregated, but were not, were not entitled to share in the pot of client money. This follows normal trust law. The Court of Appeal reversed this ruling, on the basis of its construction of the client money rules.