In January 2011, the High Court refused to approve an examiner’s rescue plan (“Scheme of Arrangement”) for construction company McInerney Homes Limited (“McInerney”), on the basis that the Scheme of Arrangement was unfairly prejudicial to the secured creditors consisting of a Banking Syndicate of Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited, Bank of Ireland plc and KBC Bank plc (the “Banks”).
The English court of appeal has held that a company should not be held to be balance sheet insolvent on the sole basis that its liabilities (including contingent and prospective liabilities) exceed its assets.
In BNY Corporate Trustee Services v Eurosail & Ors, the Court of Appeal considered in detail, for the first time, the construction of section 123 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986, which sets out circumstances in which a company can be deemed to be unable to pay its debts.
The relevant portions of section 123 provide as follows:
On 15 April 2010, the High Court confirmed the appointment of a full-time administrator to Quinn Insurance, Ireland’s second largest insurance company. Though the Quinn Group briefly fought against the proposed administration, it ultimately withdrew its objection and conceded the appointment. The insurance company is now being run by two outside managers, who will run the business as a going concern in an effort to get it back on a secure financial footing.
Bell Lines Limited (in Official Liquidation)
LK Shields Solicitors acted for the Secretary of State for the Department of Business Innovation and Skills of the Government of the United Kingdom (the Secretary of State) in a Supreme Court Appeal which raised a succinct technical point in a liquidation.
A recent Isle of Man case, Interdevelco Limited v. Waste2energy Group Holdings plc, demonstrates that the debate around how courts should approach international insolvency legislation rages on. The decision emphasised the importance of the principle of universality, the concept that there should be one insolvency proceeding under which all creditors’ claims can be collectively assessed and administered. This approach contrasts with that taken by the Supreme Court of England and Wales in the two recent cases of Rubin v.
26 November 2013
[2013] EWHC 3689 (Comm)
Commercial Court, Queen's Bench Division (Burton J)
Foreign insolvency proceedings do not override arbitration agreements
The trustee of a large bankruptcy in Israel commenced proceedings in the Israeli insolvency court against Dr Bannai to recover assets (worth $150m) said to be due to the bankrupt under a 2002 agreement. The 2002 agreement was governed by English law and contained a London arbitration clause which it was accepted covered the claims in question.
The Court of Appeal of Jersey has now considered in an appeal against the Royal Court’s decision of 10 January 2018 the case of a UK trustee in bankruptcy (the “Trustee”), whose appointment had been recognised in Jersey by order of the Court and who had been authorised to obtain documents and/or information for particular purposes, who was later subject to coercive measures in his home jurisdiction requiring the disclosure of such material for different, unauthorised purposes (in this case an Information Notice issued by HMRC pursuant to Schedule 36 of the UK Finance Act 2008 (the “
The Bankruptcy Filing
Sale Hearing
On September 20, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court approved the sale of certain assets of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ("LBHI") and Lehman Brothers Inc. ("LBI"),1 including those related to its Canadian Capital Markets and Investment Banking businesses, to Barclays Capital, Inc. ("Barclays"). The sale was approved despite the filing of over 80 objections raising a number of procedural and substantive issues. The Purchase and Sale Agreement was subsequently amended, and a clarifying letter filed, to address a number of the questions and concerns raised.
Key Points
- COMI of Jersey companies held to be in England and Wales
- Argument of improper motive generally insignificant where purpose of administration can be achieved
The Facts