In the English High Court, the joint administrators of four English companies within the former Lehman Brothers group sought directions from the Court in respect of a proposed settlement. The settlement would put to rest substantial inter-company claims including those at issue in the 'Waterfall III' proceedings.

In a second application heard on the same day, Hildyard J considered an application by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Limited (LBEL) for directions that would enable a surplus to be distributed to the sole member of LBEL while LBEL remained in administration. The proposed scheme had material benefits for both shareholders and creditors. The administrators acknowledged that the orders sought were an indirect means of circumventing the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK), which does not expressly provide for directors to make distributions during an administration.

The Accountant in Bankruptcy (AiB) has released its Annual Report and Accounts for the year 2016-17. The report contains a wealth of data, including a collation of the AiB's quarterly insolvency statistics.

Corporate insolvency

The recent case of Breyer Group plc v RBK Engineering Limited considered the use of winding up petitions in construction contracts.

An application was made by Breyer to stop RBK from continuing with a petition to wind up the company. The court decided that winding up petitions can operate as a form of commercial oppression and may not be appropriate, especially when adjudication or ordinary proceedings would be a more appropriate forum for the dispute.

The background

Any business owner will know the importance of consistent cash flow to the success of their business. On 1 October 2017, a new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims will come into force. The new Protocol will make the process of claiming debts from unwilling debtors slower and more onerous for creditors as a new mandatory process before a claim can be issued is required, with longer timescales. It also aims to avoid court proceedings wherever possible, firmly encouraging parties to engage in alternative forms of dispute resolution.

This case considers section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986, namely the rules on avoidance of certain floating charges, and provides analysis of the application of s245 notwithstanding the Liquidation originated in the British Virgin Islands.

This article was first published in The Gazette, and the original article can be found online here.

The implementation of the Insolvency Rules 2016 has introduced a number of changes to the procedures in insolvency regimes.

The facts

A former bankrupt had purported claims against a firm of solicitors arising pre-bankruptcy, which vested in his subsequently appointed trustee in bankruptcy. The debtor wrote to both the Official Receiver (OR) and, post appointment, the trustee in bankruptcy, offering to buy the claims. The trustee subsequently disclaimed the claims. The debtor alleged that the claims had already re-vested in him following his notice to both the trustee and the OR.

Key points

• The dismissal of the appellant’s previous application for an annulment of a bankruptcy order was a serious procedural irregularity
• A court may annul a bankruptcy order under s 282 IA 1986 if it is satisfied that the order ought not to have been made based on grounds existing at the time the order was made
• In relation to appeals made pursuant to s 375 IA 1986 to review or rescind the decision of a lower court, the court may consider fresh material.

The facts

Key Points

• Floating charge is valid even where there are no unencumbered assets at the time it is taken
• Crystallisation of prior ranking floating charge does not impact enforceability of second ranking floating charge

The Facts