On 1 October 2015, several changes to UK insolvency legislation are coming into force. Insolvency practitioners and stakeholders should take note of the following key amendments to make sure they are up to date with these changes.
Latest Lehman judgment reassures end users on Close-out Rights
It is undeniable that the legal complexities, and unprecedented facts, of the long running Lehman Brothers saga have generated a wealth of legal principal, most notably through the Waterfall series of litigation.
Dealing with subject access requests (“SAR”s) under the Data Protection Act 1998 is becoming a regular occurrence for many organisations, particularly banks and their advisors. Processing such requests can take up significant manpower and the costs can be substantial. Whilst designed to allow individuals to access personal data, determine its source, why it is held and who it is shared with, in reality SARs are frequently being used as a fishing exercise for prospective litigation and complaints against institutions such as banks. The recent case of
In March 2014 the European Commission issued a Recommendation considering a new approach to business failure and insolvency, targeting efficient restructuring of viable enterprises in financial difficulty and a second chance for honest entrepreneurs.
One of the functions of the UK Insolvency Service is to investigate directors’ conduct and if appropriate to commence directors disqualification proceedings or enter into disqualification undertakings. As the Insolvency Service has recently reviewed in its Newsletter the type of conduct which led to the longest disqualification bans in 2014/2015, now would seem like a perfect opportunity to reflect on the lessons learned from the biggest offenders.
Did you know that if a company is listed on the Interim Permission Consumer Credit Register that the directors of the company need the written consent of the FCA before they can file a notice of intention to appoint administrators (“NOI”), and failure to obtain FCA consent renders any subsequent appointment invalid?
Most businesses that; offer goods or services on credit, lend money to consumers, or provide debt solutions and advice to consumers will be carrying out consumer credit activities, and may well have an interim permission and be listed on the Consumer Credit Register.
At a time when insolvency practitioner’s (“IPs”) fees are being scrutinised more closely than ever, the case of Bell v Birchall and others [2015] is a timely reminder to IPs to consider the necessity of the work they propose to undertake, particularly in respect of assets that do not form part of the insolvent estate. In this case, the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to make a “Berkeley Applegate” order.
Summary
On 12 May 2015, the English High Court provided guidance on the interpretation of the Loss provision under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement in its judgment in Fondazione Enasarco v Lehman Brothers Finance S.A. and another [2014] EWHC 34 (Ch). The judgment will be of interest to participants in the derivatives markets as it provides:
New guidance from the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) regarding pre-packaged administrations (pre-packs) outlines their approach to pre-packs when the same insolvency practitioner (IP) proposes to continue as office holder in any subsequent liquidation or company voluntary arrangement (CVA).
On 1 October 2015 the Insolvency (Protection of Essential Supplies) Order 2015 (“PESO”) will come into force. PESO aims to strengthen the statutory protection provided to insolvent companies and insolvency practitioners who need to utilise ‘essential supplies’ to continue to trade.
Essential Supplies