Fulltext Search

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

  • 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

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

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

Having launched the original version three years ago, we have refreshed our Safeguarding Your Business guide as an eBook. The guide assists clients in protecting themselves either proactively or reactively in respect of a counterparty’s insolvency with new sections on trusts and examples of how we have helped, using some of the principles raised.

Key Points

  • Interpretation of EU case law on protection of pension payments on employer insolvency not “entirely free from doubt”

The Facts

The claimant (C) was a member of the T&N defined benefit pension scheme from 1971 to 1998. In 2006, the scheme entered a PPF assessment period and C calculated that his pension under the PPF would, as a result of caps and limitations on indexation, be roughly 67% less than what he had previously expected.