In Masri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company SAL – Butterworths Law Direct 6.2.09 a receivership order had been made, paragraph 15 of which stated that 'Nothing in this order shall, in respect of assets located outside England and Wales, require the defendants and/or their directors to disobey the order of any court of competent jurisdiction in relation to such assets'.

Many landlords are experiencing the difficulties caused by tenants going into administration. Often their administrators seem to ignore landlords’ interests and lease terms when putting pre-packs together and many let the buyers of the insolvent business into the premises under informal licence arrangements, putting the landlord entirely at the administrators’ mercy when it comes to the payment of rents. If they’re lucky, administrators will offer to pay rent on a monthly basis in arrears.  

In Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) decided that an employee of a business in administration was unable to have the protection afforded to employees under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) when the business in which he was employed was transferred and continued as a going concern with the transferee.

In Sea Emerald SA v Prominvestbank - Joint Stockpoint Commercial Industrial & Investment Bank - Lawtel 19.8.08 the Commercial Court gave a reminder of the importance of ensuring that the person signing a guarantee upon which you may seek to rely has authority to do so.

In Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL and another – Butterworths Law Direct 4.4.08 the principal issues on the appeal were whether the Commercial Court had international jurisdiction to make an order for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, and a freezing order, and whether a receivership order could be made by way of equitable execution in relation to future debts.

In Lexi Holdings plc v Luqman and others – Butterworths Law Direct 17.8.07 the claimant company (the company), by its joint administrators, commenced proceedings against the first Defendant and his family, including the fifth Defendant. The company successfully applied without notice for freezing orders against the fifth Defendant.

In Franses v Al Assad – Butterworths Law Direct 26.10.07 a freezing order was granted against the first respondent, principally in respect of £6.5m that formed part of the proceeds of sale of a property that had allegedly been owned by him. The first respondent applied to discharge the freezing order.

In Samsun Logix Corporation v Oceantrade Corporation; Deval Denizeilik VE Ticaret A.S. v Oceantrade Corporation and another – Butterworths Law Direct 18.10.07 the Defendant in both cases was subject to Chapter 11 proceedings in the US.

Read time – 2 minutes

On December 20, 2019, Judge Marvin Isgur in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) entered a memorandum opinion which held that debtors' midstream gathering agreements formed real property covenants "running with the land" under Oklahoma law - and such agreements could not be subject to rejection under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. section 365(a) (allowing a debtor-in-possession, "subject to the court's approval," to "assume or reject any executory contract.").