In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.

The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.

The simplified proceedings for the approval of an arrangement (postępowanie o zatwierdzenie układu) is the newest restructuring procedure available under Polish law.

It was introduced to the Polish legal system by the so-called Shield 4.0 enactment (ie Act of 19 June 2020, Journal of Laws of 2020, item 1086).

Here's a round-up of the key information you need to know about Poland's new simplified restructuring procedure.

How do the simplified proceedings work?

As the impact of COVID-19 is felt throughout the economy, even those companies able to weather the storm are likely to feel the effects of corporate insolvency as collaborators, customers and suppliers find themselves in financial difficulty. This article focuses on the impact of insolvency on IP licences from the perspective of both licensors and licensees. It also contains our top tips for mitigating the risks.

Although no insolvency law-specific regulatory changes have been introduced in Hungary due to COVID-19, the Hungarian Government has adopted numerous extraordinary measures that may have a profound effect on how companies deal with solvency and liquidity related problems under the new circumstances.

Firstly, although the bankruptcy procedure is to be initiated by the management of the company, the prior approval of the main body of the company (ie the shareholders) is required. Due to the curfew currently in effect, in-person shareholders’ meetings are mostly prohibited.

A recent judgment has clarified the duty of receivers when selling secured property to a company connected to a creditor.

Background

The claimant alleged that the receivers, appointed on behalf of, and selling to a party connected to the creditor, had acted in bad faith. They had placed themselves in a position of conflict and had engaged in self-dealing. As well as dealing with this issue, the court also assessed where the burden of proof lies when allegations of failing to act in good faith are raised.

Held

On 21 April 2018, new rules regarding the handling of “group” insolvency proceedings of companies in Germany become effective.

The regulations aim at better coordination between separate insolvency proceedings which must be implemented for every company within a group under German insolvency rulings. Up to now, coordination was quite difficult, due to separate responsibilities of different courts and insolvency administrators.

Investors may, for reasons outside of their control, find themselves with a financially distressed company in their portfolio and possibly in unfamiliar territory. Consequently, it is not just those investors who actively seek out opportunities within the distressed space who should be mindful of the implications of insolvency processes (most commonly administration which can often also be used as part of a wider restructuring).

Key points

• Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators

• Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”

• Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances

The Facts

Background

Under German insolvency law, employees are generally protected from claw-back claims. The payment of wages is considered a "cash transaction" if the employer pays the salary within three months of the work being performed. A “cash transaction” can only be contested in limited circumstances. Where a third party pays the salary, the cash transaction privilege remains if it is not clear to the employee that a third party made the payment (s.142(2) and s.3 InsO).

A recent German Federal Court of Justice ruling shows that this protection has limits.

The High Court recently decided that a prosecution could be brought against an administrator under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (TULRCA) in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court [2021] EWHC 3013.