On 20 October 2017 Registrar Derrett handed down judgment in the case of Thomas v Haederle (unreported), in which she gave reasons for dismissing a bankruptcy petition presented by the debtor (T) in the County Court at Norwich on 4 December 2014, pursuant to s 272 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86), as it then was.
This article was originally published in International Corporate Rescue, Volume 14 Issue 5, 2017. Please click here to read the original article.
It is now clear that the Pensions Regulator will take a much tougher approach in future towards employers and scheme funding. The new approach comes after a select committee of MPs looking into the BHS collapse criticised the Regulator for being reactive, slow-moving and reluctant to exercise its powers.
The two key areas where we expect the Regulator to be more aggressive are scheme funding and "moral hazard" powers.
In UBS AG v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GmbH(1) the Court of Appeal heard an appeal relating to whether complex, loss-making financial transactions were enforceable against the respondent (KWL) in circumstances where they had been entered into against the backdrop of a corrupt relationship between the appellant counterparty (UBS) and the respondent's agent (Value Partners).
The recent case of Farnborough Airport Properties Company and another v HMRC is noteworthy for the light it shines on the dimly lit and often difficult interaction between tax law and insolvency.
The issues
In September 2017, the UK construction industry contracted for the first time in over a year. With Brexit delaying some investment plans, there is also a degree of uncertainty in the industry, and, of course, the risk that some construction companies may be forced into insolvency. This blog post considers some practical implications from an insurance angle.
Protection
The High Court gives an insolvency exclusion a wide scope and declines to apply narrow interpretation rules for exclusions in insurance contracts in Crowden and another -v- QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd [2017] EWHC 2597 (Comm).
On 25 October 2017, the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB) published its insolvency statistics for the latest quarter, July to September 2017.
In this case, the claimant brought proceedings against the first defendant claiming damages for breach of a settlement agreement, and an order under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for the setting aside of the sale of a vessel. It was alleged that the sale of the vessel was a sham designed to put the first defendant’s assets out of the reach of the claimant. The latter claim was also brought against two other defendants, being the purchaser and sub-purchaser of the vessel.
Key points
Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators
Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”
Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances
The Facts