The Masri litigation has yet again troubled the English Court on the principle of comity and provided the Court of Appeal with the opportunity to say just how important it is in international debt enforcement.

The background on Masri

In Rainy Sky S.A and six others v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50, the Supreme Court provided useful guidance on the role of business common sense in construing a clause in a commercial contract, particularly in circumstances where there are competing plausible constructions, neither of which is clearly preferable on the language used alone.

The facts

FSA has published three consultation papers on the Retail Distribution Review (RDR). The papers cover:

On 31 October 2011, MF Global UK Limited, an insolvent investment broker, became the first investment firm to enter the special administration regime (the “SAR”) created by the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/245).

The SAR was adopted in February 2011 following the collapse of Lehman Brothers and has the advantage over ordinary corporate administration in that it sets special objectives for the administrator and this is the first time the SAR has been used. The SAR sets three objectives for a special administrator:

The UK Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) confirmed on 31 Oct. 2011 that MF Global UK Limited (“MF Global UK”) will be subject to the new Special Administration Regime (“SAR”).^[1] This is the first time that the new regime, set out in The Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (“SAR Regulations”)^[2] has been invoked.

Background

According to the credit insurer, Euler Helmes, there were more insolvencies in construction than in any other sector during the first six months of 2011.

Where an insolvency affects consultants and contractors mid project then clients will be concerned about the possible ramifications for their projects.  What are some of the key considerations for a client in this scenario.

Company Insolvencies

One of the criticisms that is often made of the UK’s complex insolvency legislation is that it is too easy for the directors of a company to put it into liquidation or administration, ‘dump’ the company’s debts and then effectively start the same business again under the guise of a new company. Such phoenixism has often been of concern to HMRC both in the civil and criminal fields and prosecutions have been made against directors who have undertaken such activities on a repeated basis.

Personal Liability Notices (‘PLNs’)

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.

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.

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