Key Points
- Court considers the impact of the Spanish Insolvency Act on guarantees governed by English law
- Court holds that the liability under the guarantee was not extinguished
The Facts
Key Points
- An administrator may be able appeal an order restoring a company following dissolution
- The court has jurisdiction to backdate a winding up order made following restoration to the date of dissolution
- The court must exercise its discretion to do so with extreme caution
The Facts
Client Connection Limited (“Company”) was placed into administration and Ms Sharma (“A”) was appointed as administrator. Following a pre-pack sale of the business of the Company, A moved the Company to dissolution.
Key Points
- Court considers the ownership of assets situated at premises owned by the bankrupt in the context of limited relevant evidence
- Court emphasises the importance of joining the correct parties to litigation
The Facts
Key points
- Section 236 (inquiry into company’s dealings) does not have extra-territorial effect
- Section 237(3) (examination) only has extra-territorial effect where appropriate machinery exists in the foreign jurisdiction
- Taking of Evidence Regulation not available where litigation not commenced or contemplated
The facts
Key Point
The mere fact that the law of the country in which an asset is situated does not recognise the trust concept does not necessarily invalidate the trust at least as far as English Courts are concerned.
The Facts
Of general interest is the appeal in the case of Horton v Henry, on which we reported in our January 2015 update. In Horton, the High Court declined to follow a previous ruling, and decided that a bankrupt could not be compelled to access his pension savings to pay off creditors.
Declining to follow a 2012 decision, the High Court has ruled that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which he was entitled within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986, and so did not form part of the bankruptcy estate.
Background
Key Points
- The principle of modified universalism (being the principle underlying the common law power to assist foreign insolvency proceedings) continues to exist
- There is a common law power to order production of information to assist foreign insolvency proceedings
- Common law assistance does not enable office holders to do something they would not be able to do under the insolvency laws by which they are appointed
The Facts
Again, of interest to all schemes providing defined benefits is the recent settlement in the litigation involving the Lehman Brothers Scheme, where the payment of £184 million, representing costs of the buying-out benefits, has been agreed.
Following a detailed investigation by TPR commencing in 2008, and a legal battle through the hierarchy of courts up to the Supreme Court (SC), members of the Lehman Brothers Pension Scheme will receive their full benefits after a settlement was reached on 18 August 2014.
Key Points
- Court cannot grant relief under the UK Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) where it could not provide such relief in a domestic insolvency.
- Even if such option were possible, court would not do so where a contract is governed by English law.
- Possibility of effectively applying provisions of foreign law under the CBIR restricted.
The Facts