In the recent case of Gillan v HEC Enterprises Ltd (in administration) and Ors [2016] EWHC 3179 (Ch), the High Court considered (1) in what circumstances administrators can recover costs and expenses incurred in dealing with trust property and (2) how the administrators’ costs in applying for a Berkeley Applegate order and other litigation were to be dealt with.

Background

PricewaterhouseCoopers sought to recover their costs in complying with disclosure orders obtained by the Liquidators of Saad Investments Co Ltd and Singularis Holdings Ltd. The disclosure orders were ultimately set aside but the costs appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal of Bermuda.

A prominent High Court case involving TV presenter Trinny Woodall and her late ex-husband’s creditors has provided a useful insight into the handling of debts following a divorce.

Ms Woodall married Johnny Elichaoff in 1999 and after a ten year marriage, the couple divorced in 2009.

During the divorce settlement it was agreed that Mr Elichaoff would pay Ms Woodall and their daughter £24,000 a year and repay a sum of £1.4 million to her.

However, just nine days before the divorce was finalised Mr Elichaoff was made bankrupt and the repayment was later declared void.

This is the third in a series of articles highlighting the changes to be brought in by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (Amendment Ordinance). Since our last article, 13 February 2017 has been announced as the date when the Amendment Ordinance will come into effect. The Amendment Ordinance makes amendments to the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (CWUMPO) and the Companies (Winding Up) Rules (CWUR).

Transactions Defrauding Creditors

In JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and another the Court considered the transfer of £1.1million from Mukhtar Ablyazov to his son in 2009 at a time when his son was 17. The money was used by the son for investments in support of his Tier 1 investor visa. The investments matured in March 2014 and were held in the son’s account.

January 2017

Practice Group: Restructuring & Insolvency

Banking & Asset Finance

Modernised UK Insolvency Rules Arriving April 2017

By Jonathan Lawrence

The updated UK Insolvency Rules 2016 will come into force on 6 April 2017. The new rules have four aims:

o to reflect modern business practice and increase efficiency; o to restructure and modernise the 1986 Rules; o to implement policy changes; and o to consolidate the 1986 Rules and subsequent amendments.

An employment tribunal has recently confirmed that employees who have been unfairly dismissed from an insolvent employer can bring an action against a connected successor company.

The tribunal held that there was a ‘commonality of ownership’ between the original and successor companies and that it was correct as a matter of public policy that employees should be able to sue the newco born from the ashes of the insolvent company.

Last week, the world of Rugby League was rocked by the news that Bradford Bulls, one of the giants of the game in the UK, had been placed into liquidation with reported debts of £1m and funding shortfall of a further £1m.

Key Points

• Provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules apply to applications for an extension of time to apply for rescission of winding up order

• Any such extensions of time should be exceptional and for a very short period

The Facts

Background

It is a criminal offence to continue trading using the name of a company which has gone into insolvent liquidation (a prohibited name).

Judgment

The Court of Appeal has just ruled on a case relating to confiscation orders made against individuals who illegally trade under a prohibited name. In this case, the defendant was given community service, and ordered to pay a confiscation order of £100,000, plus costs. The individual appealed the confiscation order on various grounds.

The court concluded that: