New insolvency fees and deposits introduced on 21 July 2016
From 21 July 2016, insolvency fees for bankruptcy and company insolvency are set to change. This is the outcome from the funding review the Insolvency Service has undertaken with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and HM Treasury and is to come into force in the shape of The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2016 (SI 2016/692).
The UK Commercial Court has dismissed the Claimant's application for a stay under Article 28 of the Judgments Regulation.
The Court of Appeal has now confirmed that a bankrupt’s undrawn pension entitlement does not fall to be included within the assessment of his income “to which he from time to time becomes entitled” for the purposes of an income payments order application (IPO) pursuant to section 310 of the Insolvency Act IA86. Horton v Henry [2016] EWCA Civ 989.
Unless you have been hiding in an igloo in Antarctica for the last year you could not possibly have missed the media furore over the huge pension liabilities of eminent companies that have become insolvent. BHS, a venerable British retailer, is the most high profile after recently entering administration with an estimated pensions deficit of £571m.
The recent case of Re Ralls Builders Limited has confirmed that in circumstances where the company is heading for liquidation directors cannot escape a wrongful trading claim by ignoring individual creditors. It emphasises the importance of taking the correct legal advice at an early stage.
On 12 February 2016 Snowden J handed down his judgment in Indah Kiat International Finance Company B.V. [2016] EWHC 246 (Ch). Indah Kiat International Finance Company B.V. ("Indah Kiat"), part of the global Asia Pulp & Paper Group (one of the world's largest pulp and paper manufacturers), applied for an order convening a meeting of scheme creditors to consider and, if thought fit, approve a proposed scheme of arrangement (the "Scheme") under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006.
A possible alternative to the freezing injunction.
A judgment has recently provided helpful guidance on a creative form of injunction. The “notification order” compels a defendant to give notice to the claimant before disposing or dealing with its assets. This notification order is less onerous than a freezing injunction, and although it usually accompanies the freezing injunction, in this case, the order was issued as standalone relief. The notification would alert the claimant to apply for a freezing injunction prior to dissipation of any assets.
The decision of the High Court inVanquish Properties (UK) Limited Partnership –v- Brook Street (UK) Limited provides a stark reminder of the strict requirements for serving a valid break notice and the traps into which the unwary can easily fall.
The actuary is not required to consider the security of benefits where a bulk transfer without member consents is proposed, the Court has decided.
A transfer without consent cannot be made unless the actuary certifies that, in their opinion, the past service rights each member will be credited with in the receiving scheme will be "broadly no less favourable" than their rights in the transferring scheme.
A proposed shakeup of the UK’s corporate insolvency regime will impose a three month freeze on legal action against stressed businesses who are investigating rescue options. In addition to this moratorium, measures have been suggested to help businesses to continue trading through the restructuring process. The intention is that this will prevent struggling companies being held to ransom by key suppliers, and will also assist in developing flexible restructuring plans. The proposal would make rescue schemes binding, even on secured creditors.