- At the 11th hour the Government has, effective today, 29 September, extended some (but not all) of the temporary provisions (which were due to expire on 30 September 2020) introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA” or “the 2020 Act”): see here.
Those who have had experiance with making office-holder remunerastion applications to court will know jow tedious and difficult they
This judgment is an important one. It concerned an application by the joint liquidators of Comet (formerly joint administrators) for directions permitting them not to carry out any further investigation into the validity of the fixed and floating charge held by a single purpose vehicle (“HAL”) that had been granted by Comet under a year before it collapsed into administration. The joint liquidators also sought a direction that they be permitted to transfer a further tranche of funds to HAL that had been realised in the administration.
Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Iain Pester, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers, advises that the judgment in the case is a timely reminder that not everything of economic value will necessarily vest in a trustee in bankruptcy pursuant to section 306 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).
The insolvency aspect of the long-running Baxendale-Walker litigation adds much needed to clarity to two practical issues arising in bankruptcy.
Conflicts of interest on the part of Administrators and the Court’s powers to grant remedial relief by appointing so-called “conflicts” administrators have become real hot topics in insolvency litigation, in particular following the decisions this year in VE Vegas Investors IV LLC and Davey v Money.
Judgment was recently handed down in the Court of Appeal case of No 1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 250. It is the first reported decision on the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 in the residential context, but it has implications as much for commercial landlords and tenants, as for residential. The case examined important issues which arose from a long lessee of a flat applying to its landlord for consent to assign.