Key points
Where the underlying liability on which a bankruptcy order is made is subsequently set aside, the correct remedy is rescission under s.375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Annulment under s.282(1)(a) is the appropriate remedy when, on grounds existing at the time of making the bankruptcy order, the order ought not to have been made.
The facts
Court of Appeal sets out test for whether defendant has assets for a freezing order application and considers the impact of delay in applying
The Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”) provides Trustees in bankruptcy with a number of mechanisms to reverse transactions, entered into prior to a person being declared bankrupt by the court, which have the effect of diminishing a bankrupt’s estate to the detriment of his or her creditors. Antecedent transaction claims aim to recover assets back into the bankrupt’s estate for the benefit of creditors. Some commonly used provisions are transactions at an undervalue, preferences and transactions defrauding creditors.
Case Alert - [2017] EWCA Civ 1872
Court of Appeal orders security for costs where ATE insurance policy did not contain an anti-avoidance provision
The Facts
This case is the first to really consider the practical impact of the recent Court of Appeal decision in Shlosberg v Avonwick [2016] EWCA Civ 1138, in which it was decided that legal professional privilege does not vest in a Trustee in Bankruptcy.
The Ministry of Justice has published the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (the “Protocol”), which came into force on 1 October 2017.
Introduction to the Protocol
An out-of-hours office appointment of an administrator, although not unusual, is not a regular occurrence in the world of insolvency. It is however, exactly what happened at 4am on Monday 2 October, as Britain’s longest surviving airline brand ‘Monarch’ entered administration. The collapse of the airline comes as a result of mounting cost pressures in an increasingly competitive market and is the third European airline insolvency in 2017, following Air Berlin and Alitalia.
The decision in Mezhprom v Pugachev, which was handed down on 11 October 2017, has potentially wide-ranging ramifications for trustees and the private client industry more generally.
Although the judgment is a first instance decision and may be appealed, the approach taken by the judge in this case to the analysis of powers conferred on protectors is an important development.
The English High Court has sanctioned a scheme of arrangement for Algeco Scotsman PIK SA, a Luxembourg-incorporated company, after the creditors consented to the New York governing law and jurisdiction clause being altered in favour of the jurisdiction of the English courts. The issues discussed were:
- the fair representation of a class of creditors;
- cross-jurisdictional schemes; and
- early tender fees offered to creditors.
Background
This article was first publised on Practical Law's Dispute Resolution Blog.