A great deal of insolvency litigation is funded by non-parties to a claim – for example, by a creditor or an “after the event” (ATE) insurer. Ordinarily such arrangements and their precise terms are confidential and are not required to be fully disclosed to a counterparty in litigation. In the recent case of Re Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) [2017] EWHC 3465 (ch) (“Hellas”), the court considered the extent to which the underlying details of the litigation funders should be disclosed for the purposes of a security for costs application.
Key points
Failure to comply with sections 333 and 363 of the Insolvency Act constitutes contempt of court for which a committal order may be obtained.
A trustee in bankruptcy should not usually require permission to apply for a committal order.
Correct procedure for application confirmed by the court.
Key points
Information obtained by compulsion can be shared between officeholders of connected estates (parent/subsidiary)
There must, however, be a possibility that there will be a surplus in the subsidiary estate
The prospect must be real as opposed to fanciful
The facts
Key points
Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators
Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”
Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances
The Facts
There are various ways misconduct can be reported in respect of companies and individuals. Establishing which authority has the power to conduct investigations of wrongdoing depends to a certain extent on the status of the companies and individuals.
Key Points
Key Points
- Floating charge is valid even where there are no unencumbered assets at the time it is taken
- Crystallisation of prior ranking floating charge does not impact enforceability of second ranking floating charge
The Facts
Key points
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