Skip to main content
Enter a keyword
  • Login
  • Home

    Main navigation

    Menu
    • US Law
      • Chapter 15 Cases
    • Regions
      • Africa
      • Asia Pacific
      • Europe
      • North Africa/Middle East
      • North America
      • South America
    • Headlines
    • Education Resources
      • ABI Committee Articles
      • ABI Journal Articles
      • Covid 19
      • Conferences and Webinars
      • Newsletters
      • Publications
    • Events
    • Firm Articles
    • About Us
      • ABI International Board Committee
      • ABI International Member Committee Leadership
    • Join
    Is your business safe? Get protected now
    2010-01-21

    In the current economic climate, disputes, particularly payment disputes, are rife. Consider the following scenario. You arrive at work early on Monday morning, to discover that the supplier with whom you have been having a long-running but relatively minor dispute over payment, has secured a winding up order against your company and appointment of a liquidator from the court. Or, equally distressing, a sheriff officer appears at your door with another form of court order in his hand - an interdict - stopping you from carrying out a key part of your business activities.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Scotland, Insolvency & Restructuring, MacRoberts LLP, Solicitor, Economy, Liquidation, Liquidator (law), Court of Session
    Authors:
    Julie Hamilton
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    MacRoberts LLP
    Establishing resolution arrangements for investment banks
    2010-01-22

    In May 2009, the Treasury published a discussion paper entitled Developing effective resolution arrangements for investment banks. In this discussion paper the Treasury set out its initial thinking on the steps necessary to improve the regime around the failure of investment firms.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Capital Markets, Insolvency & Restructuring, Norton Rose Fulbright, Climate change mitigation, Public consultations, Investment banking, Investment company, HM Treasury (UK), Trustee
    Authors:
    Jonathan Herbst , Peter Snowdon
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Norton Rose Fulbright
    New year blues
    2010-01-05

    THE PERENNIAL PROBLEM OF UNPAID DEBTS – YOUR RECOVERY OPTIONS

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Squire Patton Boggs, Costs in English law, Debtor, Injunction, Consideration, Solicitor, Debt, Liquidation, Court costs, Insolvency Act 1986 (UK)
    Authors:
    Stephen Cole
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Squire Patton Boggs
    Notice of intended dividend; bar date of December 31, 2010, established for preferential and unsecured claims against LBIE
    2010-01-06

    The Joint Administrators (the “Administrators”) of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) have issued a notice, dated December 4, 2009 (the “Notice”), pursuant to Rule 2.95(1) of the U.K. Insolvency Rules 1986, announcing their intent to make a distribution (by payment of an interim dividend) to preferential creditors (if any) and unsecured, non-preferential creditors of LBIE. The Notice was authorized on December 2, 2009, by an order of the High Court of Justice (Companies Court) in London (the “U.K. Court Order”).

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, Unsecured debt, Dividends, Debt, Lehman Brothers, High Court of Justice (England & Wales)
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
    English High Court decides that a non-creditor can be established as a "victim" of a transaction at an undervalue
    2010-01-07

    In Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd and others v Robert Smailes and others [2009] EWHC 3190 (Ch), the principal issues before the Court were whether the third claimant, Focus Insurance Company Ltd (Focus), had a real prospect of success in its claims to be, first, a creditor (under the Insolvency Act 1986) of the fifth defendant, Alexander Samuel LLP (LLP) in respect of unpaid premiums and, second, a "victim" under ss.423-425 of the Insolvency Act 1986 of the sale of LLP's business to Jiva Solicitors LLP (Jiva) effected around the same time as it went into administration.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Locke Lord LLP, Solicitor, Limited liability partnership, Prejudice, Insolvency Act 1986 (UK), High Court of Justice (England & Wales)
    Authors:
    Victoria Anderson , Jeanne Kohler , M Machua Millett
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Locke Lord LLP
    U.K. court protects U.S. policyholders by rejecting solvent scheme
    2010-01-07

    At the urging of U.S. policyholders, a Scottish court recently rejected a Scottish insurance company’s efforts to close its books and avoid full liability for long-tail claims when the insurance company is solvent and entirely capable of paying claims.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Scotland, Insolvency & Restructuring, Insurance, Litigation, Jenner & Block LLP, Liability (financial accounting), Liquidation, Voting, Liability insurance, Dissenting opinion, Majority opinion, Court of Session
    Authors:
    Brian S. Scarbrough
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Jenner & Block LLP
    High Court confirms position in relation to the payment of rent by a company in administration
    2010-01-11

    The High Court has ruled in the case of Goldacre (Offices) Limited v Nortel Networks UK Limited (in administration) [2009] that rent for premises that continue to be used for the beneficial outcome of an administration must be paid as an expense of the administration. This decision confirms that the court has no discretion in these circumstances and that it does not matter if only part of the premises are being used. This contrasts with the position where a landlord wishes to take action against a tenant in administration such as bringing forfeiture or injunction proceedings.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Real Estate, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, Unsecured debt, Injunction, Landlord, Leasehold estate, Asset forfeiture, Court of Appeal of England & Wales, High Court of Justice (England & Wales)
    Authors:
    Matthew Bonye
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
    Administrators who use premises must pay the rent as an expense
    2010-01-13

    Summary and implications

    The court has clarified that administrators must pay rent as an expense of the administration when they use property.

    The High Court has recently held* that:

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Real Estate, Nabarro LLP, Unsecured debt, Landlord, Leasehold estate, Interest
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Nabarro LLP
    Administrators' liability to pay rent
    2010-01-13

    The case of Goldacre v Nortel, decided in December, has clarified the circumstances in which an administrator is liable to pay rent under a lease as an expense of an administration. If rent is an expense of the administration, the landlord will almost certainly be paid in full for as long as the administrator uses the property. If it is not such an expense, the landlord will be an unsecured creditor who will be lucky to receive a few pence in the pound.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Real Estate, RPC, Landlord, Leasehold estate, Liquidation, Asset forfeiture, Unsecured creditor, House of Lords, Court of Appeal of Singapore
    Authors:
    Vivien Tyrell
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    RPC
    Payment of rent by tenants in administration: good news for landlords
    2010-01-15

    A decision by the High Court in December has strengthened the position of landlords who sometimes do not get paid during the administration even where the administrator is running the business from the property.

    Certain categories of expense which may be incurred by the company after it has gone into administration, and which an administrator has to pay are known as "expenses of the administration" and the assets of the company in administration must be applied towards payment of these expenses ahead of any payment to creditors under floating charges or to unsecured creditors.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Real Estate, Reed Smith LLP, Unsecured debt, Landlord, Leasehold estate, Consent, Moratorium, Asset forfeiture, Precondition
    Authors:
    Clare Whitaker , Katherine A. Campbell , Siobhan Hayes
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Reed Smith LLP

    Pagination

    • First page « First
    • Previous page ‹‹
    • …
    • Page 425
    • Page 426
    • Page 427
    • Page 428
    • Current page 429
    • Page 430
    • Page 431
    • Page 432
    • Page 433
    • …
    • Next page ››
    • Last page Last »
    Home

    Quick Links

    • US Law
    • Headlines
    • Firm Articles
    • Board Committee
    • Member Committee
    • Join
    • Contact Us

    Resources

    • ABI Committee Articles
    • ABI Journal Articles
    • Conferences & Webinars
    • Covid-19
    • Newsletters
    • Publications

    Regions

    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • North Africa/Middle East
    • North America
    • South America

    © 2025 Global Insolvency, All Rights Reserved

    Joining the American Bankruptcy Institute as an international member will provide you with the following benefits at a discounted price:

    • Full access to the Global Insolvency website, containing the latest worldwide insolvency news, a variety of useful information on US Bankruptcy law including Chapter 15, thousands of articles from leading experts and conference materials.
    • The resources of the diverse community of United States bankruptcy professionals who share common business and educational goals.
    • A central resource for networking, as well as insolvency research and education (articles, newsletters, publications, ABI Journal articles, and access to recorded conference presentation and webinars).

    Join now or Try us out for 30 days