Sigma is a structured investment vehicle, whose business involved acquiring asset-backed securities and other instruments, using funds raised by issuing or guaranteeing US dollar and Euro medium term notes (MTNs) as well as liquidity from other sources, such as facilities, derivatives, repurchase contracts and capital notes. All of Sigma’s assets were secured in favour of its secured creditors upon the terms of a Security Trust Deed (STD) made between Sigma and Deutsche Trustee Compa ...
|
A reinsurer’s failure to replenish a trust account set up under an agreement with an insurance company did not make the insurer a creditor of the reinsurer. Accordingly, the insurer did not have locus standi to bring a winding-up petition in respect of the reinsurer.
|
The effect of the Sch.B1 para.43(6) of the Insolvency Act 1986 was not that proceedings brought against a company in administration without consent or permission of the court were a nullity, but only that they were liable to be stayed. Thus when considering a claim made without consent of the administrators against a company in administration, the correct course for an employment tribunal to take was to accept the claim but stay proceedings pending the issue of consent.
|
If the country of the principal winding up of an insolvent company was the “relevant country or territory” for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986 s.426 and the liquidators in that country requested the English liquidators to remit to them the assets collected in England so that they could, pursuant to the insolvency law in that country, implement a universal scheme of pari passu distribution to ordinary unsecured creditors, the request was one to which, in principle, the English liquidators ...
|
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 reg. 3 was capable of applying to any transfers effected consequent upon an insolvency, including cases in which the insolvent transferor did not continue to trade or where no part of its undertaking was transferred as a going concern.
|
The secretary of state was not liable to make payments to transferred employees out of the insolvency fund, by virtue of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 reg. 8, because there were no insolvency proceedings in place when the business was transferred, and even if there were, they were not under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner.
|
The appellant appealed against a decision of the Supreme Court of Mauritius in proceedings for the enforcement of securities granted by the respondent bank. Held that where a debtor had not objected to crystallisation of a floating charge, or contested its validity as he could have done under the Mauritian Civil Code, he could not contest the validity of the charge in later proceedings for validation of attachment orders.
|
| 1 |