Litigation is full of uncertainty. Even the strongest case carries risks and a primary consideration when embarking on any litigation is whether the proposed defendant is able to pay.

If your business is being pressed to disclose details of your insurance coverage prior to a claim being brought against it are you obliged to do so?

The recent case of Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company Ltd. v Dornoch Ltd gave the High Court the opportunity to consider whether a public liability insurance policy is something that should be disclosed pre litigation.

It was ordered that the Administrators could distribute to unsecured creditors, 8 years after Nortel entered Administration, so long as a reserve was maintained in relation to potential expense claims.

A case of two companies, one incorporated in Dubai and the other in England, involved in a network of businesses producing contrived fancy colour diamond valuations were eventually wound up by English courts in the interest of the public.

Karhoo, a US incorporated company able to benefit from the Chapter 15 US bankruptcy code provision for foreign insolvency proceedings following UK Administration.

On 2 March Cambridgeshire-based merchant WellGrain went into administration, reportedly owing at least £15m to almost 300 creditors, many of those being farmers.

The administrators' report has now been published and indicates that the unsecured creditors - including some 155 farmers - will expect to receive between 1.4 - 6.7 pence for every pound they are owed.

It is an announcement which will no doubt be met with dismay by those creditors. However, it is not unusual that unsecured creditors of an insolvent company will receive little or no payment.

The procedure for Debt Relief Orders ("DRO") is unchanged, possibly because it is a comparatively new process having only come into force in 2009. However there has been some shuffling of rules numbers, in an effort to regularise and make the structure more logical.

Eligibility

To be granted a DRO, the debtor:

The procedure for an application to Court for the appointment of an Administrator pursuant to paragraph 12 of Schedule B1 IA 86 is covered by r3.3-3.15 of the 2016 rules.

Key points to note:

Section 216 continues to apply to prohibit the re-use of a name or sufficiently similar name where oldco and newco have common directors.

The relevant rules now dealing with the exceptions are contained in new rules 22.1 - 22.7.

The three exceptions remain broadly the same but there are some key differences to note.

Exceptions to the prohibition

The rules relating to income payment orders ("IPO") and income payment agreements ("IPA") are largely unchanged. The time periods dictated in the old rules for IPOs and IPAs remain the same, however there are some added requirements in the new rules, particularly in relation to the contents of notices and orders.

Rule 10.109 Application for income payments order (section 310)

[…]

(4) the notice to the bankrupt must be authenticated and dated by the trustee.

Rule 10.110 Order for income payments order

Part 15 Insolvency Rules 2016 consolidates the rules in relation to notices, voting rights, exclusions and appeals introducing some much needed consistency between the different insolvency processes. Most of the changes are minor, but the new Rules also introduce two radical changes:

1. The abolition of physical meetings as the default decision making mechanism in all insolvency processes, and

2. New decision making procedures (including deemed consent which will be covered in next week's update.)