On 14 October 2009 the Government announced a major change to the way in which company buy-backs of debt will be taxed. The change may be relevant to any corporate debt buy-back where debt is being purchased at less than face value, including the exercise of a post-enforcement call option in a securitisation.

The global financial crisis has resulted in many loans trading at below par value. This presents borrowers with an opportunity to purchase their own debt and, therefore, extinguish the debt at a reduced cost.

We have spent a lot of time thinking about landlords being affected by tenants going into administration over the last year. This posting is about a court case where the landlord’s administrators were trying to postpone the tenant’s application to Court for the grant of a new tenancy under the 1954 Act.

The administrators failed in their attempts to defer the 1954 Act proceedings even though it severely affected the value of the property in question and the amount that was going to be paid out to the secured creditor.

The recent Scottish Court Opinion on Scottish Lion’s proposed solvent scheme of arrangement,1 in which it was held that to sanction a solvent scheme there must be a “problem requiring a solution” and, in effect, unanimous creditor approval, was followed by a short hearing on Wednesday 14th October in which Lord Glennie said that he would dismiss the petition for the scheme.

Re Stanford International Bank Limited and others [2009] EWHC 1441 (Ch) provides answers to key questions on the UNCITRAL Model Law on cross-border insolvency. What will courts recognise as a “foreign proceeding”? What types of insolvency practitioners will qualify as “foreign representatives”? Is a company’s “centre of main interests” (COMI) always in the country of its registered office? Linda Ralli considers the practical implications for banks which have lent to foreign companies where they are looking to enforce in England.

Facts

On 17 September the DWP published a consultation paper (attaching draft regulations) in which it proposes that certain corporate restructurings will not trigger an employer debt under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. Following on from amendments introduced by regulations in 2008, the draft regulations also make some technical amendments to the employer debt regime, which are intended to ease its operation in practice.

Section 75: a reminder

Where the Courts Service failed to notify the Land Registry of a bankruptcy petition with the effect that property was disposed of without a pending action having been registered, the trustee in bankruptcy had a right to claim damages.

The Scottish Court of Session Decisions has nixed a scheme of arrangement under the UK Companies Act of 2006, stating it could not be judicially sanctioned without the assent of all creditors. A scheme of arrangement is a reorganization device in which, with the approval of at least three-quarters of a company’s creditors, the company may compromise the claims of all its creditors. A somewhat analogous device might be a “cram-down” under U.S. bankruptcy law, with the important distinction that a scheme of arrangement may be used even by a solvent company.

Some of the customers of Farepak, the failed Christmas hamper company that went into liquidation with BDO Stoy Hayward some three years ago, will apparently soon receive their first dividend cheques out of the insolvency. Perhaps even in time for Christmas 2009!

In William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd, the judgment of which can be accessed here, the consequences of an anachronistic piece of contract drafting cost the losing party over £1 million. The issue here was whether or not the contractor under a building sub-contract could successfully pass the risk of the employer’s insolvency onto its sub-contractor by means of what is commonly known as a “pay when paid” clause.

Structured finance transactions frequently subordinate a swap counterparty’s rights to termination payments upon termination of a swap by reason of counterparty default. Such a provision has recently been upheld by an English court. As the case concerns the insolvency of Lehman Brothers however, the US courts must also make a decision on the same provision.