The Supreme Court recently handed down its judgment in Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23. The Court was unanimous in dismissing the appellants’ case that the claimants’ claims against them should be struck out on the grounds of illegality and on the basis that section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 does not have extra-territorial effect.

Most people who deal in property regularly will be very aware of the risk of acquiring a property for less than its true value if it turns out that the seller falls into some sort of insolvent procedure after the sale. This “undervalue” concern will often be front of mind if it is known that the seller is in a distressed situation, e.g. their lender is threatening to take possession. In some cases the ‘look back period’ for an insolvency practitioner taking office over an insolvent seller’s affairs can be as long as 5 years.

First publised in CRI

The Court of Appeal in London today gave judgment in the Waterfall I Appeal, a dispute as to the distribution of the estimated £7 billion surplus of assets in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

LBIE entered administration on 15 September 2008 and has now paid its unsecured creditors 100p for every £1 owed.  The Waterfall I Appeal addressed some of the key issues as to who should receive the surplus, which we discuss below.

Currency Conversion Claims

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Jetivia S.A. and Another v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) and Ors should make it easier to pursue claims against rogue directors. The Supreme Court held that, in instances where a company has suffered as a result of the unlawful behaviour of its directors, that behaviour cannot be attributed to the company to disallow the company, or its liquidators, from raising claims against directors for breach of their duties.

Background

A recent English High Court decision has held that prospective Administrators do not need to look behind the directors’ motives in appointing them; they need to look ahead as to what might happen in the administration and consider whether the statutory purpose of the administration can be achieved.

HHJ Purle had to consider an application for directions by liquidators of WGL, a company which was involved in a construction project for the School under a JCT Intermediate Building Contract (with Contractor’s Design) 2005 as amended. A dispute had arisen as to who owed money to whom, and the court was asked to decide the correct forum for resolving that dispute. According to the liquidators, around £615k was due to WGL, and according to the School, £270k was due to them.

Double First: A Ukrainian group of companies breaks ground — first by changing the governing law of its high yield bonds from US to English law and then by being the first Ukrainian-based group to restructure via an English law scheme of arrangement The Debate: Chapter 11 vs Scheme of Arrangement The restructuring market has for some time been engaged in a spirited debate about the appropriate forum in which to restructure US law governed high yield (HY) bonds issued by European and American corporates.

Introduction

Companies are habitually used as part of a corruption scheme. Such companies often have only a single director, or a small number of directors, and are beneficially owned by the wrong-doers.

Insolvency powers can be effective tools to obtain compensation for victims of fraud or corruption, in the right circumstances.

A state could, for example, apply to Court for a liquidator to be appointed over a company used for corruption.

The trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme -v- Olympic Airlines SA

On 29 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in relation to the trustees’ appeal. The unanimous decision was in favour of Olympic Airlines SA (the respondent). The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the High Court was wrong and confirmed that in order for there to be an ‘establishment’ there must be some business dealings with third parties. The trustees’ appeal was therefore dismissed.