This case raised the issue of when a company in financial distress (or the directors of that company) should issue a Notice of Intention to Appoint an Administrator (“NOITA”) which affords a moratorium under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”).

A question which the court was asked to consider recently was:

Does a conditional fee agreement continue to apply if the claim is amended part way through the proceedings?

Key Points 

• Claims against Kaupthing could not be pursued in the English courts

• No implied restriction on jurisdictional effect under the Winding-up Directive

• Position analogous to Judgments Regulation and Insolvency Regulation

The Facts

The Facts

A debtor entered into an IVA with his creditors. He complied with the terms of the IVA and a certificate of compliance was issued by the IVA supervisor. Subsequently, the debtor received two PPI settlement payments from banks. The supervisor applied to court for directions as to whether the payments were caught by the trust created by the IVA. The Deputy District Judge held not and the High Court agreed on appeal. The supervisor was given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Decision

Key point

• A recalibration of the issues to be considered when adjudicating on COMI in individual bankruptcy.

The Facts

Since 6 April 2016 debtors apply online to be made bankrupt, rather than petitioning the court. Their application is considered by an adjudicator who, if deemed appropriate, will make the bankruptcy order.

The Facts

The liquidator of a company refused to requisition a meeting of creditors on the basis that it was being called by the potential defendants to actions arising out of his investigations with the purpose of removing him and stymying any claims. The liquidator applied to Court for a direction not to summon the meeting.

The Decision

As of 25 April 2017, for courts within the Chancery division of the High Court in London, the filing of all applications, forms and documents must be performed electronically. This includes the Bankruptcy and Companies Courts within Greater London. It does not apply to the High Courts outside London.

The court’s sanction of DTEK's latest scheme includes novel references to its outstanding bank debt and helpfully rules on the controversial 'domicile test'.

The procedure for Debt Relief Orders ("DRO") is unchanged, possibly because it is a comparatively new process having only come into force in 2009. However there has been some shuffling of rules numbers, in an effort to regularise and make the structure more logical.

Eligibility

To be granted a DRO, the debtor:

This month the new Insolvency Rules 2016 came into force, replacing the Insolvency Rules 1986. We cover this, and other issues affecting professionals in the insolvency and fraud investigation industry below.