Key Points

• Trustees in bankruptcy entitled to more than return of shares wrongfully transferred by bankrupt
• Trustees also entitled to recover loss in the value of shares
• Appropriate basis of valuation was fair value (not market value)

The Facts

Key points

• Court does not have jurisdiction to direct detailed assessment of fees agreed by administrators on application of liquidator
• Administrators can agree solicitors’ fees for work carried out during the administration after they cease holding office
• The court has no inherent jurisdiction to direct a detailed assessment

The facts

Key points

• There have been conflicting decisions on whether a person may be made the subject of any income payments order (IPO)
• This case suggests that the court will not make an IPO in respect of unelected pension entitlements

The facts

The facts

Key Points

• Directors should take (and follow) advice from insolvency practitioners as early as possible in distressed situations in order to protect themselves from liability.
• If a company does continue to trade “wrongfully”, the directors must be able to demonstrate that they have taken all steps to reduce losses to individual creditors, as well as creditors as a whole. However, no order should be made unless the deficiency for creditors as a whole is increased in the period of wrongful trading.

The Facts

The Facts

On 31 July 2012, a bankruptcy order was made in respect of Mr Dean Jonathan D’Eye on the basis of a statutory demand dated 11 July 2011.

During their investigations, his trustees in bankruptcy discovered that Mr D’Eye had made a payment of £321,919 to his father on 24 January 2012 (the Payment) and, after the presentation of the bankruptcy petition on 28 May 2012, a significant portion of this money had then been used to purchase a flat (the Flat).

The Facts

Mr Shlosberg, a Russian businessman domiciled in England who was made bankrupt in January of last year, has obtained an injunction restraining Dechert LLP from acting on behalf of the main claimant, Avonwick Holdings Limited (Avonwick) in proceedings in which he is a defendant.

The Facts

A owned two properties, one of which had been divided into two separately rateable properties for council tax purposes. R presented a bankruptcy petition against A based on a purported debt of £14,097.59 owed by A in respect of unpaid council tax for which it had obtained liability orders from the Magistrates Court.

Key Points

• Court held notice to scheme creditors (here two weeks) was not sufficient in light of complexity of scheme
• Court also highlighted deficiencies in supporting documentation

The Facts

Key points

Lenders and proposed administrators should ensure that permission is in place where permission of prior charge holders is required for the grant of new security.

The facts