The recent Court of Appeal decision in Saw (SW) 2010 Ltd and another v Wilson and others (as joint administrators of Property Edge Lettings Ltd) is the first case to address the effect of automatic crystallisation of an earlier floating charge upon a later floating charge.

The recent case ofCrumper v Candey Ltd [2017] EWCH 1511 (Ch) delivered an updated analysis of the operation of section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“s245”). Although the insolvency proceedings (and much of the litigation before and after the insolvency commenced) originated in the British Virgin Islands, they were recognised in England and Wales under the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006.

When reviewing a security for costs application under CPR 25.12, the courts are faced with the challenge of striking a balance between an impecunious claimant’s access to justice and the possibility of a successful defendant being unable to recover their costs. This is because the general rule in relation to costs under CPR 44.2 is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the successful party.

The High Court has recently held that an individual may claim the proceeds of the sale of assets subject to an agricultural charge by the application of the equitable remedy of marshalling.

Agricultural Sector

The presumption that courts normally validate dispositions by a company subject to a winding up petition if such dispositions are made in good faith and in the ordinary course of business has been called into question in the recent case of Express Electrical Distributors Ltd v Beavis and others [2016].

We’ve previously commented on this blog on a number of decisions (see: (i) Too Little, Too Late: Ninth Circuit Holds Confirmation Objection Insufficient to Revive Untimely Complaint Objecting to Dischargeability of Debt, (ii)

A new fee structure in respect of insolvency fees payable to the Insolvency Service came into force on 21 July 2016, pursuant to The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2016 (SI 2016/692) (the “Order”), which revokes The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2004 (SI 2004/593) and all ten subsequent amendment orders.

For those interested in a quick read with some juicy facts and egregious acts by the relevant practitioners, check out the recent opinion in Church Joint Venture, L.P. v. Blasingame (In re Blasingame), where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an order denying approval of a proposed settlement agreement was not a final order susceptible to appeal as of right.

One of the more appealing aspects of the U.S. bankruptcy process is the relative ease in which parties in interest may file proofs of claim. In years passed all it took was to mail in a simple form to the bankruptcy court or claims agent and now it is even easier with the advent of email and electronic claims uploading. This relatively easy process, however, often comes with a plethora of invalid or unenforceable proofs of claim.

Last week the UK Government issued a consultation document on changing UK insolvency legislation to enable distressed companies to obtain a moratorium for up to three months, with the possibility of an extension, under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner. The moratorium would prevent all creditors, including secured creditors, from taking any enforcement action against such companies without first applying to court for permission to do so. This follows a briefing paper published by R3 last month suggesting a similar moratorium process.