Fulltext Search

Key Points

  • Court held notice to scheme creditors (here two weeks) was not sufficient in light of complexity of scheme
  • Court also highlighted deficiencies in supporting documentation

The Facts

Key points

  • Principles applying to exercise of liquidators’ powers are the same as those prior to legislative changes
  • Views of creditors influenced by personal considerations to be disregarded
  • The overriding requirement is for liquidators to exercise their professional judgment in the best interests of creditors

The facts

Key Points

  • Test for personal service of bankruptcy petition same as for claim forms
  • Document to be handed to debtor or contents explained and left “with or near” debtor
  • Rule 7.55 can be used to remedy any irregularity in service if necessary

The Facts

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

From 1 November 2015, additional marketing and disclosure requirements will have to be satisfied by administrators completing pre-packaged sales.

BACKGROUND

The revised Statement of Insolvency Practice 16 (SIP 16) comes into force on 1 November 2015.

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

RE: HARVEST FINANCE LTD; JACKSON & ANOTHER V CANNONS LAW PRACTICE LLP & OTHERS [2014]

This case concerns the provision of documentation under s236 IA 1986. The documentation requested by the liquidators was extensive and the Respondents wished to claim their time costs (£40,381) of providing the same.  The Court held that whilst it was within the Court’s jurisdiction to make an order for costs against the insolvent estate, it was not minded to do so in this case.

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