In a decision that will be welcomed both by second-ranking secured creditors and by administrators, the Court of Appeal recently held that a second-ranking floating charge (SRFC) was still capable of being a qualifying floating charge for the purposes of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 despite the earlier crystallisation of a prior-ranking floating charge (PRFC). In addition, the SRFC was capable of being enforceable notwithstanding the fact that there were no assets of the chargor which were not covered by the PRFC.
Landlords have no reason to fear Frankenstein’s monster, following the decision of the High Court in EMI Group Limited v O&H Q1 Limited. The court was considering, once again, the anti-avoidance provisions in the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. Many will be familiar with the effect of the 1995 Act, which ensures that both tenants and their guarantors are released on assignment.
The advent of the new Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) brought with it a shift from a creditor-protectionist society towards a business rescue model that is debtor-protectionist. In consequence, there has been a swarm of applications taking advantage and exploiting this new scheme. This shift has unfortunately led to considerable abuse of the business rescue procedure.
The UK High Court today took a crucial step towards resolving the difficult issue of when administrators must pay rent.
The High Court has allowed an application for an order to enable access to a bankrupt’s pension to satisfy debts arising from fraud. Prior to the bankruptcy, judgment was obtained against him for £3.2m plus costs.
Doing business in the United States
2021
2
Hogan Lovells
Doing business in the United States 2021
3
Contents
Introduction1
I.Openness of U.S. markets to foreign investment
2
II.Direct or indirect market entry and choice of entity
8
III. Commercial contracting
20
IV.Labor and employment law considerations
26
V.Immigration laws
34
VI.Intellectual property laws
40
VII. Export control and economic sanction laws
46
VIII. U.S. antitrust laws
56
RE: A COMPANY (INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN PRESENTATION OF PETITION)
美国是世界上最容易开展业务的司法管辖区之一1。监管壁垒总体较低,建立分支机构或业务实体方 便快捷,相比其他多数发达经济体,劳动就业法律对雇主更为友好,并且法律体系发达、透明。然 而,在美国进行投资或设立业务之前,仍有若干准入壁垒及营商挑战需要考虑。 本刊将简要介绍可能限制非美国人进入美国市场或在美国设立业务后开展业务能力的贸易管制问题, 以及对外国投资者而言极其重要的公司、商事、劳动就业、移民、知识产权、反洗钱、反垄断、出 口管制、反腐败、责任、破产等法律及实践。本刊并非综合性指南,仅对投资者需要考虑及与法律 顾问商讨的一些重要问题加以概述。
Collapsed retailer British Home Stores cannot challenge its own company voluntary arrangement as an unenforceable contractual penalty and must repay rental discounts to its landlords, the High Court in England and Wales decided yesterday.
The case, in which Hogan Lovells represented the successful landlord, provides important guidance on the operation of company voluntary arrangements (CVAs), particularly after termination, and the payment of rent as an expense of a company’s administration in priority to other debts.
CVAs
Despite a modest uptick in recent years, it is still a relatively rare occasion for the Supreme Court of the United States to tackle issues involving bankruptcy. This term, however, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two bankruptcy appeals that could have important consequences for the financial community. In FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, the Court will define the parameters of the safe harbor of Bankruptcy Code section 546(e), which excludes certain financial transactions from the debtor’s avoidance powers. In PEM Entities LLC v.