Sheriff McCormick at Glasgow Sheriff Court has been asked to rule on this specific point in the recent case of Gary John Cook v The Accountant in Bankruptcy [2019] SC GLA 82, which he answered in the affirmative.

This is of particular relevance for trustees in sequestration when the debtor has paid into a pension scheme and is intending to apply for a drawdown of the proceeds from that scheme, following the appointment of the trustee.

The facts are fairly straightforward:

An effective and well-equipped insolvency and restructuring regime gives confidence to investors and financiers, enabling credit to flow through to businesses and boost economic activity, growth and innovation.

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.

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.

The recent Court of Appeal case of JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Limited v. Davis Haulage Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 267 has set out the importance of there being a settled intention to enter administration and indicated that this is a pre-requisite to an out of court appointment being validly made.

Dickinson v NAL (Realisations) Staffordshire Ltd is a useful case on how directors’ duties are looked at following a formal insolvency and ways in which an office holder can challenge transactions if there is evidence of wrongdoing or a concerted strategy to frustrate creditors’ recourse to a Company’s asset base which would ordinarily be available to them in an insolvency, subject of course to valid security and/or third party rights.

An employment tribunal has recently confirmed that employees who have been unfairly dismissed from an insolvent employer can bring an action against a connected successor company.

The tribunal held that there was a ‘commonality of ownership’ between the original and successor companies and that it was correct as a matter of public policy that employees should be able to sue the newco born from the ashes of the insolvent company.

The recent case of Re Newtons Coaches Limited [2016] EWHC 3068considered whether a partnership falls within the remit of s.216 Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 86”).

In the case of Re BW Estates Ltd the High Court considered the validity of a directors’ out of court appointment in circumstances where there was technically an inquorate directors’ board meeting.

Since changes were made to the Bankruptcy Act 1985 (the “Bankruptcy Act”) in 2008 it has been possible for sheriffs to continue sequestration petitions for up to a maximum of 42 days.  This was a change from the previous position whereby sequestration petitions could only be dealt with by the grant of the award or dismissal, and was brought in in recognition of the common practice adopted by many sheriffs.