Regular readers of my blogs over the years will know that I never pass up a chance to use a musical analogy for business problems. As an insolvency lawyer with a second calling treading the boards, my legal practice and my music frequently vie for my attention: never more so than during the Christmas season.
In Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc and another (2015), the High Court declined to set aside an order under CPR Part 71 that a non-resident foreign officer of a judgment debtor provide information needed to enforce the judgment. There is no requirement that there be "exceptional circumstances" for such an order to be made.
Background
Application for a freezing order in support of foreign proceedings/appointment of a receiver and a power of attorney
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2015/3383.html
The applicants (based in the UAE and Georgia) sought freezing orders against the respondents in support of proceedings taking place overseas. The respondents are LLPs registered in England and Wales and owned by a Georgian national.
The High Court has upheld the pari passu principle central to English insolvency legislation when applied to a deceased’s insolvent estate and interpreting legislation stated to be “modified accordingly”. This approach clarifies that foreign currency claims and claims for interest should be calculated for voting purposes as at the date of death, rather than the date an Insolvency Administration Order (IAO) is made. HFW acted for the respondent in this case.
Introduction
The Football League has recently finalised some important changes to its insolvency policy which were approved at an AGM over the summer. These changes could have significant implications for clubs, funders, investors and potential rescuers.
Background – the Football Creditor Rule
The Football Creditor Rule
The approach of the Football League to insolvency has drawn a lot of attention in the press over recent years. Particular attention has been paid to the “Football Creditor Rule”.
The director at the heart of the Carrington Wire pension fund deficit saga has been disqualified for a period of 12 years.
Background
This month in Sharma v Top Brands Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1140 the Court of Appeal has again been asked to grapple with the question of when the illegality defence is available to defendants to actions brought by an insolvent company where the losses claimed are arguably tainted by the company's own fraudulent actions. In this instance the question for the court was whether the defence was available to a former liquidator of a company seeking to defend a claim brought against her for breach of duty under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).
Key Point
There is no assumption under English law that, where a company appeals against a winding-up order, it should give security for costs.
The Facts
In Bellis v Challinor [2015] EWCA Civ 59 and Gore v Mishcon de Reya [2015] EWHC 164 (Ch) the question arose whether monies transferred to a solicitors’ client account were held on trust for the solicitors’ client or on a Quistclose trust for the transferor. Both decisions have provided clarity as to when a Quistclose trust will be found to exist and the nature of the construction exercise the court will undertake.
Section 236 Insolvency Act ("IA") 1986 enables the Court power to summon persons with information about the affairs of a company to appear before it and / or to produce documents. In our August bulletin we considered the decision of the English High Court in Re MF Global [2015] EWHC 2319 when it was held that s236 does not have extra-territorial effect. However, having looked at the issue again in Official Receiver v Norriss [2015] EWHC 2697, the High Court has departed from the position in Re MF Global.