The implications of taking an appointment over an insolvent business which is regulated by environmental law can be far reaching. Environmental regulation has become more stringent and the sanctions for breach can leave the IP exposed to liability, including (amongst other things) costs sanctions.
The main environmental regimes referred to in this update are the contaminated land and water pollution regimes.
The court has held that a statutory demand is valid despite the high default interest rate on an underlying loan.
On 16 September 2010 the UK Treasury published a consultation paper seeking views on its proposals for a new Special Administration Regime (SAR) for investment firms. The Consultation included draft regulations that will implement the SAR (the Draft Regulations).
The Consultation was prompted by the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2008 which posed (and continues to pose) serious challenges for insolvency regimes around the world.
On 7 September 2010 "property and environmental services giant" Connaught, which had large contracts with many local authorities for maintenance of social housing, went into administration. In the wave of publicity which followed, the administrator quickly announced that it had "sold" the "majority of the ongoing contracts and their related assets" to Lovell, a subsidiary of Morgan Sindall. Since then, announcements have been few and far between.
In Gulf International Bank v Al Ittefaq Steel Products Co and others [2010] EWHC 2601 (QB), the High Court set out the factors that must be taken into account by the court when exercising its discretion to extend time for payment of sums due following an admission.
Introduction
Against the backdrop of the recent sheriff court decisions regarding the need to appoint a Court Reporter even in cases where the assets are insufficient to meet the IPs' fees, the Court of Session has taken an innovative approach to approving IP fees without the need to appoint a court reporter.
Background
If you were waiting to hear what the English Court of Appeal had to say about the lower court decision in Marine Trade S.A. v. Pioneer Freight Futures Co. Ltd. you’ll be disappointed, as the appeal was dismissed by consent of the parties on October 22, 2010.
A leading South Yorkshire insolvency expert has warned of a risk of a rise in corporate insolvencies in the new year.
The Government Insolvency Service third quarter figures show a slight decline in all forms of corporate insolvency and a big decline in the number of administrations (down 35 per cent on this time last year and 19 per cent down from the previous quarter).
The High Court has struck down a company voluntary arrangement on the ground that it unfairly prejudiced a landlord who was to lose the benefit of a guarantee given by the tenant’s parent company. The judge said it was “unreasonable and unfair in principle” to require the landlord to give up the guarantee and there was “no sufficient justification” for requiring the landlord to accept a sum of money in lieu.
By a judgment handed down on 26 October 2010 in Sugar Hut Group Ltd & Ors v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc & Ors [2010] EWHC 2636 (Comm), Mr Justice Burton in the Commercial Court held that insurers were entitled to avoid, for a material non-disclosure of a corporate re-organisation, a policy which could otherwise have covered losses arising from a fire at the premises of the insureds.