There have been a number of recent English Court judgments of interest in the corporate field and this corporate update reports on cases relevant in relation to warranties and representations in M&A transactions, restrictive covenants in acquisition agreements, the enforcement of foreign judgments in cross-border insolvency proceedings and the piercing of the corporate veil.

WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS? - Ensuring clarity of intention when drafting acquisition agreements

Following the announcement that Crystal Palace Football Club had gone into administration in January 2010, the club's administrator wanted to sell the club as a going concern. Shortly after he  signed a sale and purchase agreement with the newly formed Crystal Palace Football Consortium (CPFC) he discovered that the club had severe financial problems and decided to 'mothball' the club during the out of season period, in the hope of selling it in the future. However CPFC then decided to withdraw its offer for the club and on 28 May 2010 the four claimants were made redundant.

A recent decision of Mr Justice Mann in VLM Holdings Limited v Ravensworth Digital Services Limited [2013] EWHC 228 (Ch) held it is possible that termination of a head licence on insolvency of the licensor does not necessarily mean a sub-licence becomes ineffective.

What was it all about?

The Court of Appeal has held that a settlement agreement, in which the defendant acknowledged that a debt was payable in full and agreed the mechanics and timing of payments, had the effect of excluding the defendant’s right of equitable set-off: IG Index Ltd v Ehrentreu [2013] EWCA Civ 95. The claimant was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the debt. The defendant however remained free to pursue his cross-claim for damages against the claimant.

Peter Bloxham has completed the first phase of his independent review of the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 and in February 2013 presented an interim report, which HM Treasury has now published. In addition to making a number of immediate recommendations, the interim report sets out further areas to be reviewed as part of a second phase of work.

CMS is advising HSBC on its expedited appeal of a recent controversial decision by the High Court refusing assistance under the cross-border assistance provisions of section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986.  The decision of the Court of Appeal will be of great interest to those involved in cross-border insolvency and restructuring as well as foreign courts.

CMS has succeeded in its application on behalf of HSBC to overturn the High Court’s decision inRe Tambrook Jersey Limited. The ruling will be welcomed by creditors and practitioners alike as the Court of Appeal has confirmed the UK courts have jurisdiction to grant assistance to a foreign court under the cross-border assistance provisions of section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 even where formal insolvency proceedings have not been opened in the foreign jurisdiction.

 The Government has decided to create a Special Administration Regime (SAR) for systemically important payment and securities settlement systems. It is concerned that, were one of these market infrastructures to become insolvent, the administrator or liquidator would have to work towards maximising value for creditors, rather than keeping critical payment and settlement services running. The Bank of England would have the power to apply to court for an order declaring the start of SAR proceedings. Ensuring continuity of service would be among the special administrator’s objectives.

 BoE has published a paper on central counterparty (CCP) loss-allocation rules. To avoid a CCP’s insolvency, these rules allocate among the CCP’s participants any losses exceeding the CCP’s pre-funded default resources, such as the margin posted by clearing members (CMs), the mutualised default fund and the CCP’s own equity. The options the paper suggests include calling additional resources from CMs, applying haircuts to margin owed to any CM or terminating unmatched open contracts.

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.