In Ebbvale Ltd v Andrew Lawrence Hosking (Trustee in Bankruptcy of Andreas Sofroniou Michaelides) [2013] UKPC 1, the Privy Council upheld a winding-up order against a Bahamian company, even though the principal purpose of the petitioning creditor may have been related to obtaining an advantage in separate proceedings in the United Kingdom.
The Northern Ireland High Court has annulled a bankruptcy order made with procedural irregularities that would have allowed the debtor to escape the much heavier consequences of a debt in the Republic of Ireland.
In the case of Garwood v Bank of Scotland PLC, the English High Court found that a charge that had been mistakenly released should be re-registered over property in the estate of a bankrupt, although this meant that the estate available to unsecured creditors would decrease.
In recent years, regulators from across the professional spectrum have invested heavily in devising new procedures for handling complaints. Often, these new procedures seek to better serve the consumer by being more straightforward and more efficient. Insolvency regulators are the latest to grasp this nettle.
Regulating IPs
Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited (“DSWC”) and Michael Sullivan and Bernard Freeman (trading as ‘Satellite Services’) v Financial Services Authority
Summary
In a judgment only recently published via the Building Law Reports, the High Court has ruled that a winding up procedure applicable to companies should not be used where there is a triable issue as to the validity of an adjudicator’s decision relied on as evidence of a company being unable to pay its debts: Towsey v. Highgrove [2012] EWHC 2644 (Chancery Division).
Background
VLM Holdings Limited –v- Ravensworth Digital Services Limited [2013] EWHC 228 (Ch)
Précis – In February 2013, the High Court ruled that businesses are permitted to use software under a sub-licence if the head licensee’s business is terminated or becomes insolvent. This ruling, however, is dependent upon the “scope of authority” given to the sub-licensor by the head licensor.
What?
In Hamilton v Hamilton [2013] EWCA CIV13 the Court of Appeal was asked to decide on whether it was appropriate to vary the terms of a Consent Order which provided for payment of a lump sum by a former wife to her former husband.
The Order required the wife to pay her husband £450,000 in 5 payments.
The wife paid a total of £240,000 by which time her business had been placed in administration and she was unable to make any further payments.
This morning we got the news that HMV had gone into administration and last week it was Jessop that went under. HMV’s administrators are still trading from the stores but the administrators of Jessops have ceased trading. Can their landlords expect their rent?
The UK Supreme Court judgment in the conjoined cases of Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in Liquidation) and another v AE Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46, which provides vital clarification on the effect of foreign insolvency judgments on the UK courts.
Background & Court of Appeal