On 11 February 2021, the English High Court confirmed in gategroup Guarantee Limited that restructuring plans are insolvency proceedings so are not covered by the Lugano Convention.
One of the debt instruments subject to the gategroup restructuring plan contains an exclusive Swiss court jurisdiction clause. Under the Lugano Convention, proceedings relating to "civil and commercial matters" must generally be brought in the jurisdiction benefitting from the exclusive jurisdiction clause.
Since Article 3: 305a of the Dutch Civil Code entered into force on 1 July 1994, a legal person (usually a foundation) can institute legal proceedings that serve to protect interests outlined in its articles of association (for example, recovering damage caused to the members of the foundation concerned). The mass claims foundation was born.
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 UK's withdrawal from the European Union has created uncertainty around insolvency law. Let's look at how things have changed in the wake of Brexit, and what that means for current and future German insolvency proceedings.
What is the state of play post-transition period?
On 1 January 2021, new Dutch restructuring law Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord (or WHOA) came into effect. Here, we run through what WHOA is and cover the first decisions handed down under the new law.
What is WHOA?
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.
Pensions in Restructuring Survey Report
January 2021
2020 might provide answers to many political and economic issues, but it is not possible to see with perfect vision what the future holds for pensions in restructuring matters.
That was part of the conclusion to the
report on Taylor Wessing's previous
Pensions in Restructuring Survey; with
hindsight, 2020 brought few answers
and posed many questions.
Pensions In Restructuring Survey Report
Welcome to the results of Taylor Wessing's fifth annual Pensions in Restructuring Survey
In a recent judgment on directors’ liability (Bundesgerichtshof, 18 November 2020, IV ZR 217/19), the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has clarified the scope of D&O insurance coverage, holding that company directors are entitled to its protection.
Background
In Cage Consultants Limited v Iqbal & Iqbal [2020] EWHC 2917 (Ch), the liquidators of Totalbrand Limited (the company) assigned certain claims – including for transactions at an undervalue and preferences – to litigation funders Cage Consultants Limited (CCL) under s.246ZD Insolvency Act 1986. The company was subsequently dissolved.
A former director of the company and another individual alleged to have benefitted from the transactions tried to strike out the claims. They did this on the basis that:
The Slovak parliament recently passed a new law – The Temporary Protection of Distressed Undertakings Before Creditors – which came into effect on 1 January 2021. It replaces the current temporary protection (moratorium) adopted at the outset of the COVID-19 crisis.
The new regulation will only be granted where a majority of the unrelated creditors involved agree with the stay. This marks a departure from the COVID-19 moratorium, which could be easily accessed by all debtors impacted by the coronavirus pandemic.