Summary

On 14 October 2015, the Court of Appeal overturned a decision that two payments had been made in breach of a freezing order. The order prohibited the respondent to the freezing injunction application from dealing with or disposing of any of its assets other than in the ordinary and proper course of business. The Court held that the judge at first instance had taken too narrow a view in construing this exception and that, in light of the specific facts of the case, the freezing order had not been breached.

Parties wishing to resist the enforcement of an adjudication decision on the grounds of insolvency usually need to show that the claiming party will not be in a position to repay the amount of the decision if required to do so in later court or arbitration proceedings. Two recent cases in the TCC have, however, shown that different considerations can apply in the less typical circumstances of a members’ voluntary liquidation and a creditors voluntary arrangement.

Maguire & Co v Mar City Developments

Landlords have lost round two in the ongoing battle as to whether rent should be paid as an expense of the administration. The decision of the Court last week in the X-Leisure / Luminar case was in favour of administrators.

Following the Goldacre case, if an administrator is using the property for the purposes of the administration on the quarter day then the full quarter’s rent is payable as an expense of the administration.  What was not clear, was whether if the administrator was appointed just after the quarter day rent was payable as an expense. 

The Facts

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to order a Latvian bank to disclose information regarding a bankrupt's dealings. The Joint Trustees of the Bankrupt's estate had demonstrated that their request was reasonable and was required to identify further assets that the Bankrupt might hold.

This decision is the latest that has been made in relation to the bankruptcy of Mr Shlosberg, a Russian businessman domiciled in London. Mr Shlosberg was made bankrupt in January 2015 on a judgment debt of US$195 million plus interest.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands granted common law recognition and assistance to the foreign Liquidators of a Cayman Islands company post Rubin v Eurofinance and Singularis Holdings Limited v PwC.

In Re China Agrotech Holdings Limited Ltd (FSD 157 of 2017 (NSJ)), the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands ("Cayman Court") granted Liquidators appointed by the High Court of Hong Kong leave to present and consent to a scheme of arrangement on behalf of China Agrotech Limited (the "Company") based on a common law discretion.

An application was made for recognition in Great Britain under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("CBIR") of new legislation in Croatia known as "Extraordinary Administration Proceeding".

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.

[Note: deemed consent cannot be used to decide on remuneration, or where the Act/Rules requires a decision by a decision procedure.]

The Deemed Consent procedure is set out in sections 246ZF (corporate insolvency) and 379ZB (personal insolvency) of the Insolvency Act 1986, as inserted by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, and rule 15.7 of the Insolvency Rules 2016.

The deemed consent procedure is that relevant creditors/contributories are given notice:

The language of the rules has been amended and there is now more reference to delivery of documents rather than service. Rules 1.40 - 1.53 set out rules relating to delivery wherever documents are required to be delivered by the new rules.

These rules include the following headings: