The High Court considered whether it would be appropriate to approve a scheme of arrangement for a company incorporated in Luxembourg where the company's COMI had been moved to England and there had been a change in the governing law and jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts.

The CJEU reviews the conflicts that arise in the defence provided under Article 13 Regulation No 1346/2000 when Liquidators of an Italian company attempt to set aside payments claimed to otherwise be permissible under English law.

The Appeals process is governed by Rules 12.59; 12.61 and Schedule 11. The old corresponding provisions were Rules 7.47 and 7.49A.

The major change to the provisions is that there is now clarification on appealing decisions made by District Judges. The new rules provide that these appeals will now lie either to a High Court Judge in a District Registry or a Registrar in Bankruptcy at the High Court. This was previously the case, but was only inserted into the old rules by way of an Amendment - they now come fully under the scope of the rules.

This note addresses the changes to CVA's in the Rules.

Consolidation of the Rules

Rule 2.1 to 2.45 are applicable to CVA's (they were formerly found between 1.1 to 1.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 ("IR86")). There has been an element of consolidation of IR86 applicable to CVA's and relating to:

In the recent case of SCI Senior Home (in Administration) v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down judgment on the question of whether a right in rem created under national law should be considered a "right in rem" for the purposes of Article 5 of the Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the "Insolvency Regulation").

Background

The UK is a well-established jurisdiction for cross border insolvencies, both within the EU and the rest of the world. The main piece of EU legislation that governs this area of law is the EC Council Regulation 1346/2000 ("the Insolvency Regulation"). Ultimately, this legislation facilitates the recognition of insolvency proceedings that span multiple jurisdictions. The Insolvency Regulation sets out the correct jurisdiction in cross border situations and, crucially, makes it mandatory for Member States to recognise insolvency proceedings in other EU countries.

This recent Court of Appeal decision has provided clarity on the justification for the rules against bringing claims for reflective loss and confirmed that both unsecured creditors and shareholders are similarly barred from bringing such claims.

Background

The Facts

Mr Reynard, a bankrupt, made an claim against his Trustee, Mr Fox. Mr Reynard acted in person at all times and issued proceedings at the county court money claims centre for breach of contract and negligence, asserting that his Trustee had failed to assess potential claims properly and had incorrectly valued the claims, and therefore had failed to take action.

The fallout from Carillion's collapse in January continues to play out as it transpired this week that the company had delayed payments to subcontractors by up to 120 days. Carillion allegedly used tactics such as faulting invoices and finding minor problems with work undertaken in order to delay payment.

The Facts

Norton Aluminium Ltd (NAL) went into Administration following a partially successful nuisance claim against it and subsequently went into Liquidation. Mr Dickinson was the managing director and controlling shareholder and brought a claim to recover a secured loan made by him to NAL. The Liquidators counterclaimed to set aside or recover compensation for various transactions, including a share buyback from Mr Dickinson and connected parties by NAL for £2.5 million and the sale of a subsidiary to Mr Dickinson for £1.