Key Points
- Directors cannot file a notice of intention to appoint (NoI) without a ‘settled intention’ to appoint an administrator
- NoIs cannot be used where there is no qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH)
- The judgment has implications for validity of appointments where requirements not met
The Facts
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
Key Points
It is commonly understood that, upon commencement of a bankruptcy case, section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code operates as an automatic statutory injunction against a wide variety of creditor actions and activities.
Key Points
- COMI of Jersey companies held to be in England and Wales
- Argument of improper motive generally insignificant where purpose of administration can be achieved
The Facts
Key Points
- Costs incurred in preparing to comply with disclosure orders not payable by liquidators
- Protection for wasted costs should have been sought earlier in the proceedings
The Facts
Slide Rules and Hula Hoops – Business Obsolescence and Bankruptcy
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
The concept of “equitable mootness” is a doctrine of relatively long-standing in bankruptcy jurisprudence. It has been used by courts to avoid determination of issues raised on appeal that would require the unscrambling of a plan previously confirmed and implemented. However, that doctrine has recently been questioned in a variety of decisions. It appears that the scope of equitable mootness is clearly ebbing. In that context, a recent decision by this Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals provides an opportunity to further examine the doctrine.
Key Points
- A dividend is a ‘transaction’ and therefore can be challenged under s 423 IA 86
- A duty to act in the best interests of creditors does not arise simply because there is a risk of insolvency which is not ‘remote’
The Facts