Summary
A bankrupt was found to be in contempt of court following years of failing to comply with the terms of multiple court orders compelling him to disclose information about his financial affairs with a view to entering into an IPOA.
The Facts
Summary
The case provides guidance for liquidators as to the appropriate exercise to conduct when deciding whether the threshold of 25% in value of creditor claims has been reached in support of a request for a creditors’ meeting under s 171.
Key point
- A liquidator is not required to apply a ‘strict proof’ test to a creditor’s claim at the requisition stage of a creditors meeting.
The facts
In November 2014, the company entered into a creditor’s voluntary liquidation.
With the aim of improving transparency around ownership and control of companies, all UK unquoted and limited liability partnerships are required to maintain new registers of People with Significant Control (PSC). The details should be recorded in the company’s own PSC register and are to be filed at Companies House.
Anyone who satisfies at least one of the following conditions:
The Facts
In December 2015, Hart J heard (and refused) an application by Mr Golstein for revocation of a decision of 31 May 2012 passing a proposal by Mr Bishop to enter into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA). Mr Golstein, who was claiming a sum of £122,000 from Mr Bishop, appealed the decision on the basis that his claim was not correctly admitted for voting purposes and that there was material non-disclosure by Mr Bishop which led to the passing of the IVA.
The Decision
Having launched the original version three years ago, we have refreshed our Safeguarding Your Business guide as an eBook. The guide assists clients in protecting themselves either proactively or reactively in respect of a counterparty’s insolvency with new sections on trusts and examples of how we have helped, using some of the principles raised.
Richards J provided directions on issues brought forward by administrators including:
- the treatment of interest
- in the context of various provable and non-provable debts.
The newest in the series of judgments to deal with interest arising out of creditors’ claims in the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), this latest instalment sought to deal with six supplemental issues on which the administrators sought directions.
One interesting discussion related to:
Key Points
- A trust can be created and enforceable in respect of assets sited in a jurisdiction that does not recognise the concept of a trust
- In circumstances where the owner of a beneficial right goes into liquidation, the transfer of legal rights held by a third party to a bonafide purchaser for value is not a disposition within the meaning of s127.
The Facts
Key point
In certain circumstances the court will look to parallel statutory provisions where existing applicable statute does not accommodate the situation, as long as the latter is not offended, expanded or altered by doing so.
The facts
This application for directions was brought by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (the “Company”) on:
Key Points
- Statutory powers are to be exercised in accordance with a company’s articles of association
- The Duomatic principle cannot simply be used as a bandage to cure a company’s procedural errors
The Facts
This appeal considered whether the sole director of a company, whose articles required two directors for its board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22 Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.