Skip to main content
Enter a keyword
  • Login
  • Home

    Main navigation

    Menu
    • US Law
      • Chapter 15 Cases
    • Regions
      • Africa
      • Asia Pacific
      • Europe
      • North Africa/Middle East
      • North America
      • South America
    • Headlines
    • Education Resources
      • ABI Committee Articles
      • ABI Journal Articles
      • Covid 19
      • Conferences and Webinars
      • Newsletters
      • Publications
    • Events
    • Firm Articles
    • About Us
      • ABI International Board Committee
      • ABI International Member Committee Leadership
    • Join
    Rodenstock - English law sufficient nexus for scheme of arrangement
    2011-10-10

    In recent years, several foreign companies have used the English law scheme of arrangement as a flexible restructuring method to compromise creditor claims.  The decision of the High Court in the latest of these cases, that of the German company Rodenstock GmbH, clarifies that an English court will accept jurisdiction where the only connection to England is that the company’s finance documents were governed by English law.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, King & Wood Mallesons, Exclusive jurisdiction, High Court of Justice (England & Wales)
    Authors:
    Robert Hanley
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    King & Wood Mallesons
    Supreme Court confirms that flip clauses don’t violate anti-deprivation principle
    2011-10-10

    One of the many issues which arose from the collapse of Lehman Brothers was whether “flip provisions”, which reverse a swap counterparty’s priority in the order of payment on insolvency, were invalid on the basis that they contravened the anti-deprivation principle.  This is a long-established common law principle which seeks to prevent an insolvent party from arranging its affairs to frustrate the legitimate claims of creditors.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, King & Wood Mallesons, Swap (finance), Good faith, Common law, Lehman Brothers cases, Lehman Brothers, Supreme Court of the United States
    Authors:
    Robert Hanley
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    King & Wood Mallesons
    Deprived or deserved? The Supreme Court clarifies its interpretation of the anti-deprivation rule
    2011-10-10

    In its recent decision in Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc,[1] the Supreme Court ruled in favour of investors, clarifying the limits of the anti-deprivation rule and holding that a commercially sensible transaction entered into in good faith and without the intention to evade insolvency laws should not infringe the anti-deprivation rule.

    Background

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Wedlake Bell, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Collateral (finance), Good faith, Common law, Default (finance), Credit default swap, Lehman Brothers, Trustee, Supreme Court of the United States
    Authors:
    Edward Starling
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Wedlake Bell
    Appointment of administrators - "or" doesn't mean "and"
    2011-10-13

    The recent case of Stephen Petitioner offers some clarification regarding issues relating to the validity of appointment of administrators.

    The Facts

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, MacRoberts LLP, Board of directors
    Authors:
    Alan Meek , John Reid
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    MacRoberts LLP
    Sharples v Places for People Homes Ltd and Godfrey v A2 Dominion Homes Ltd (2011) EWCA Civ 813
    2011-10-14

    The Insolvency Act 1986 makes provision for, amongst other things, bankruptcy and Debt Relief Orders.

    When a person is made bankrupt, his property vests in the trustee in bankruptcy. Some items, however, are excluded from the estate, including any assured or secure tenancy (s283). Once a bankruptcy order has been made, no creditor in respect of a debt provable in the bankruptcy may have any remedy against the property of the bankrupt 'in respect of that debt' (s285(3)(a)).

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Real Estate, Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP, Bankruptcy, Costs in English law, Landlord, Leasehold estate, Debt, Moratorium, Insolvency Act 1986 (UK), Court of Appeal of England & Wales
    Authors:
    Colin Hammond
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP
    HMRC clamping down on owners of bankrupt businesses
    2011-09-05

    HMRC is leading an increasingly tough stance against owners of businesses that have failed to pay their taxes before going bankrupt, says City law firm Wedlake Bell.

    Figures from the Insolvency Service reveal that in the last year Bankruptcy Restriction Orders (or equivalent undertakings) were obtained against 443 bankrupts because of neglect of their business - a majority of which were alleged to have consistently failed to pay taxes to HMRC. This was an increase of 21% on last year and concern actions taken against sole traders and partnerships (Year ending March 31).

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Tax, Wedlake Bell, Bankruptcy, Fraud, Gambling, Debt, Subscription business model, HM Revenue and Customs (UK), The Independent
    Authors:
    Edward Starling
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Wedlake Bell
    Collective redundancy – representative claims
    2011-09-05

    Independent Insurance Co Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Aspinall and another UKEAT/0051/11

    Independent Insurance Company - IIC- went into provisional liquidation in June 2001.  Half of its employees were made redundant including Mr Aspinall and Mrs O’Callaghan.  They issued proceedings claiming a protective award when IIC failed to comply with its collective consultation obligations, consult with employee representatives or arrange for necessary elections.   

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Employment & Labor, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Steptoe LLP, Employment tribunal, Public consultations, Trade union, Liquidation, Unfair dismissal, Election, US House of Representatives, Employment Appeal Tribunal
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Steptoe LLP
    Beware the blessings of technology: email exchange may create a binding UK contract
    2011-09-14

    Recent remarks by the English High Court in the insolvency case Green (Liquidator of Stealth Construction Limited) -v- Ireland [2011] EWHC 1305 (Ch) suggest that in some circumstances, and at least in the context of fast-moving real property transactions, an exchange of emails may well satisfy the requisite formalities for creation of a binding and enforceable contract.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Liquidator (law), Insolvency Act 1986 (UK), High Court of Justice (England & Wales)
    Authors:
    Raymond L. Sweigart
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
    What's in a name? Some guidance on prohibited names
    2011-09-14

    Sections 216 and 217 of the Insolvency Act impose draconian sanctions on directors of liquidated companies who reuse "prohibited names". Prohibited names are names that are identical to, or "suggest an association with", a company that has gone into liquidation and of which they were previously directors. The sanctions include criminal penalties and personal liability for debts. It has always been difficult for advisers to confidently advise directors whether a proposed name for a new company would be a prohibited name, given the vague nature of the phrase "suggest an association".

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, MacRoberts LLP, Debt, Voluntary association, Liquidation
    Authors:
    Alan Meek , John Reid
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    MacRoberts LLP
    Financial restructurings of foreign companies through English schemes of arrangement
    2011-09-20

    Lending to a foreign company? If you choose English law to govern your facility documents and provide for the English court to have exclusive jurisdiction, an English scheme may be a viable means of restructuring the debt later, if the need arises.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Dentons, Conflict of laws, Debt, Consent, Liquidation, Exclusive jurisdiction, Secured loan, Constitutional amendment, Insolvency Act 1986 (UK)
    Authors:
    Susan Moore
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Dentons

    Pagination

    • First page « First
    • Previous page ‹‹
    • …
    • Page 402
    • Page 403
    • Page 404
    • Page 405
    • Current page 406
    • Page 407
    • Page 408
    • Page 409
    • Page 410
    • …
    • Next page ››
    • Last page Last »
    Home

    Quick Links

    • US Law
    • Headlines
    • Firm Articles
    • Board Committee
    • Member Committee
    • Join
    • Contact Us

    Resources

    • ABI Committee Articles
    • ABI Journal Articles
    • Conferences & Webinars
    • Covid-19
    • Newsletters
    • Publications

    Regions

    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • North Africa/Middle East
    • North America
    • South America

    © 2025 Global Insolvency, All Rights Reserved

    Joining the American Bankruptcy Institute as an international member will provide you with the following benefits at a discounted price:

    • Full access to the Global Insolvency website, containing the latest worldwide insolvency news, a variety of useful information on US Bankruptcy law including Chapter 15, thousands of articles from leading experts and conference materials.
    • The resources of the diverse community of United States bankruptcy professionals who share common business and educational goals.
    • A central resource for networking, as well as insolvency research and education (articles, newsletters, publications, ABI Journal articles, and access to recorded conference presentation and webinars).

    Join now or Try us out for 30 days