Background

In the case of Horton v Henry, the Court of Appeal has recently upheld the High Court’s decision that a Trustee in Bankruptcy cannot compel a bankrupt to draw down his pension rights where the bankrupt has not elected to do so.

The facts

The facts

Through corporate acquisitions and asset transfers, BAT Industries plc (“BAT”) (a Claimant in the proceedings) became liable to contribute to the clean-up of the sediment of the Lower Fox River in Wisconsin, U.S.A. Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (“AWA”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (“Sequana”) (a Defendant in proceedings), became liable to indemnify BAT for part of any monies paid out. Provision was duly made in AWA’s accounts to reflect a best estimate of the value of such liability.

The High Court has determined the circumstances in which sums drawn down under a self-investment personal pension scheme could be subject to an income payments order.

The background

The received wisdom is that if, as a debtor, you are considering equitable set-off arguments, you are clutching at straws. A recent case shows a rare example of when such rights can successfully be used however. This article explores the issues further.

The background

Company dissolution and restoration, and its effects upon property of the company, is a difficult area to grapple with. Two recent decisions dealt with similar issues but with completely different outcomes. We analyse the decisions and which one should be viewed as correct.

The background

This article takes a look at the considerations laid down in Re Sahaviriya Steel Industries UKLimited [2015] EWHC 2726 when the court is asked to make a validation against anticipated payments – what guidance can be extracted?

The past two months have seen a further plethora of regulatory and legislative changes. We sum up some of the more significant ones.

Pre-pack pool open for business

This month’s summary of “also ran” update items forms a fairly eclectic mix, however some useful items can be pulled out of them.

PPF guidance to Insolvency Practitioners onpre-pack

The recent decision in Brooks and Willetts (Joint Liquidators of Robin Hood Centre plc) v Armstrong and Walker [2015] EWHC 2289 sets out guidance on the burden of proof for directors in wrongful trading claims when seeking to establish that they have taken every step to minimise the potential loss to creditors. We explore the issues raised for practitioners.

The background to the case

The question of appropriate action in the face of directors’ duties to creditors in the pre-insolvency “twilight zone” is a perennial one. In particular, the question of preservation of asset value (given all the hoo- ha about pre-packs), and whether to transfer out assets before insolvency has an impact on value, is fraught with difficulty. Two recent cases offer contrasting versions of how to go about it.

Background – Re French UK plc