This article considers the cost consequences following service of a statutory demand in two scenarios:
Introduction:
The Government has launched a new consultation on a number of technical and regulatory changes affecting pensions legislation. One of the proposed changes is to amend the entry rules in relation to the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). The consultation follows on from the recent Supreme Court decision in Olympic Airlines and the introduction of specific legislation to ensure the beneficiaries of that particular scheme received protection in circumstances where the entry rules otherwise excluded them.
In Re Fivestar Properties Ltd, the High Court has decided that a dissolved company which is subsequently restored to the register could have its freehold property re-vested in it, even though the property had passed to the Crown bona vacantia and the Crown had subsequently disclaimed it.
An order recognising South Korean insolvency proceedings involving a shipping company, which had the effect of staying the commencement of actions against the company, was varied so that parties who had contracted with a Korean ship operator could pursue claims against it in London arbitration1.
Background
On 1 April 2015, responsibility for consumer credit in the UK transferred from the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) to the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”). A consequence of this was to replace the OFT’s Consumer Credit Act licencing scheme with the FCA’s authorisation scheme under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”).
This Court of Appeal decision in (1)TopBrandsLtd(2) LemioneServicesLtdv (1) Gagen Dulari Sharma (2) Barry John Ward (as former liquidators of Mama Milla Ltd) (2015) is noteworthy as it underlines that the “illegality defence” is still in a state of flux and in need of clarification by the Supreme Court.
This decision of the Chancery Division is a useful reminder to lenders of the Court’s power to set aside a transaction intended to defraud a creditor under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
The Facts
The Defendant, Mr Ahmed, was registered as the proprietor of two properties known as High Elm and Hilltop (the “Properties”). The Claimant advanced monies to be secured over the Properties by second legal charge. The Defendant fell into arrears and the Claimant commenced possession proceedings.
I am often asked “what do you do”? If I reply “a regulatory solicitor”, this inevitably elicits a blank expression from the enquirer (be that a non-lawyer or lawyer), so I go on to the more long-winded version, that I am a criminal solicitor who advises business owners and other stakeholders on how to stay on the right side of the criminal law, and defends them when they get it wrong.
Re Lyondell Chemical Co, et al; Edward Weisfelner, as Trustee of the LB Litigation Trust v LR2 Management K/S [18.09.15]
US Bankruptcy Court confirms that a trustee in bankruptcy could not avoid freight payments made by charterers shortly before they applied for bankruptcy protection.
Implications
This article was first published by RECOVERY News and the full article can be found online here.