Summary

The court was prepared to provide for immediate release of administrators from office and to wind up a company without presentation of a petition.

The Facts

Administrators applied to court for their release, the winding up of the company and their appointment as liquidators.

The company’s remaining asset was a leasehold interest with an ultimate landlord, the immediate landlord having surrendered its interest.

Summary

The case provides guidance for liquidators as to the appropriate exercise to conduct when deciding whether the threshold of 25% in value of creditor claims has been reached in support of a request for a creditors’ meeting under s 171.

Key point

• A liquidator is not required to apply a ‘strict proof’ test to a creditor’s claim at the requisition stage of a creditors meeting.

The facts

In November 2014, the company entered into a creditor’s voluntary liquidation.

The Investment Bank Special Administration Regime (SAR) was introduced in 2011 in response to difficulties faced in the Lehman Brothers administration. Following a review of the regime by Peter Bloxham in 2014, and a Government consultation in 2016, the Treasury has introduced draft regulations to improve the regime - The Investment Bank (Amendment of Definition) and Special Administration (Amendment) Regulations 2017.

In two months' time the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 will come into force (with effect from 6 April 2017). This date has been long in the making the first draft of the new rules was published in September 2013.

The new rules are not intended to change the law. Their main aim is to consolidate provisions in order to reduce repetition, ensure that there is a more logical structure and modernise and simplify the language (including gender neutral drafting).

This briefing highlights a few of the key changes.

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:

In the recent case of SCI Senior Home (in Administration) v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down judgment on the question of whether a right in rem created under national law should be considered a "right in rem" for the purposes of Article 5 of the Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the "Insolvency Regulation").

Background

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.