Background

Article 4.1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings (the "Regulation") states: "Save as otherwise provided in this Regulation, the law applicable to insolvency proceedings and their effects shall be that of the Member State within the territory of which such proceedings are opened..."

Article 4.2 of the Regulation sets out a non-exhaustive list of the matters which the law of the state of the opening of insolvency proceedings is to determine, including:

The Joint Administrators (the “Administrators”) of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) announced on Oct. 5, 2009, that they are developing a contractual (i.e., non-judicial) alternative to their proposed Scheme of Arrangement, which is the subject of an appeal following a decision by the High Court in London that it lacks jurisdiction to implement the scheme.

The Prior Proposed Scheme of Arrangement

• Consultation ends September 7 2009
• Likely to re-ignite controversy over 'pre-pack' administrations

New proposals by the Government to improve access to rescue finance for small companies would allow larger or complex businesses to make private applications to the courts for an "administration-type" regime without creditors necessarily knowing. Proposals in the same consultation on lending to insolvent companies could drive up the cost of borrowing, says Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP (RPC), the City law firm.

The Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) has published The Insolvency (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Rules 2009. These Rules amend the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986 (S.I. 1986/1915). No Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared in relation to these Rules as they are not expected to impose any significant burdens on business.

View The Insolvency (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Rules 2009, 1 September 2009  

In the case of William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2009] EWHC 1603 (TCC) (25 June 2009), the court declined to incorporate amendments made to an Act before the contract was signed which were not specifically referred to in the contract.

The facts

In Butters and ors v BBC Worldwide Ltd and ors, decided on 20 August 2009, the Court held that contractual provisions in a joint venture agreement taken together with termination provisions in a licence of IP rights were void since the effect of those provisions on insolvency was to deprive creditors access to assets and therefore contrary to public policy in the light of insolvency laws.

BUSINESS IMPACT

DWP consults on amendments to the employer-debt regulations

The Court of Appeal has heard the appeal in Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd. Although its written judgment has not yet been published, it appears that it heard an appeal only on a narrow point of employment law and did not give definitive guidance on the application of the insolvency provisions in the TUPE Regulations which had been the principal issue in the EAT.

Introduction

The High Court1 in England has confirmed the validity under English law of contractual provisions common in structured finance transactions which subordinate payments to a swap counterparty in circumstances where the swap counterparty has defaulted on its obligations under the terms of the relevant swap agreement.

The Judgment

Parties

In a recent case1, the High Court concluded that it was right to sanction schemes of arrangement which formed part of a wider debt restructuring that excluded out-of-the-money junior creditors. In doing so, it valued the distressed companies on a going concern basis.

Background