UK Supreme Court decision confirms traditional rules on enforcement of all US judgments in England and reverses a significant liberalisation of cross-border bankruptcy law.

The UK Supreme Court today delivered an important decision on the meaning of the so-called 'balance sheet insolvency test' in s.123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK) (BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail 2007-3BL PLC [2013] UKSC 28 ("Eurosail")).

In the case of Garwood v Bank of Scotland PLC, the English High Court found that a charge that had been mistakenly released should be re-registered over property in the estate of a bankrupt, although this meant that the estate available to unsecured creditors would decrease.

In recent years, regulators from across the professional spectrum have invested heavily in devising new procedures for handling complaints. Often, these new procedures seek to better serve the consumer by being more straightforward and more efficient. Insolvency regulators are the latest to grasp this nettle.

Regulating IPs

Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited (“DSWC”) and Michael Sullivan and Bernard Freeman (trading as ‘Satellite Services’) v Financial Services Authority

Summary

In a judgment only recently published via the Building Law Reports,  the High Court has ruled that a winding up procedure applicable to companies should not be used where there is a triable issue as to the validity of an adjudicator’s decision relied on as evidence of a company being unable to pay its debts: Towsey v. Highgrove [2012] EWHC 2644 (Chancery Division).

Background

VLM Holdings Limited –v- Ravensworth Digital Services Limited [2013] EWHC 228 (Ch)

Précis – In February 2013, the High Court ruled that businesses are permitted to use software under a sub-licence if the head licensee’s business is terminated or becomes insolvent. This ruling, however, is dependent upon the “scope of authority” given to the sub-licensor by the head licensor.

What?

In Hamilton v Hamilton [2013] EWCA CIV13 the Court of Appeal was asked to decide on whether it was appropriate to vary the terms of a Consent Order which provided for payment of a lump sum by a former wife to her former husband.

The Order required the wife to pay her husband £450,000 in 5 payments.

The wife paid a total of £240,000 by which time her business had been placed in administration and she was unable to make any further payments.

Matthew Purdon Henderson v. Foxworth Investments Limited and 3052775 Nova Scotia Limited

Inner House case of some complexity in which the Liquidator of the Letham Grange Development Company sought reduction of a security over the Letham Grange resort near Arbroath. The case involves a number of companies all controlled by a Mr Liu and his family.

Share purchase agreements often include indemnities or covenants to pay designed to protect the buyer for a period after completion where some unquantifiable liability is anticipated that will impact on the value of the company being acquired. This is particularly so in the case of unpaid tax.