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
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
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
Key Points
Where a sole director and shareholder of a company had breached fiduciary duties he could not ratify the breach if the company was insolvent;
Claims against the company in liquidation by dishonest assisting parties could not be set off under rule 4.90 Insolvency Rules against any liability they had in damages for that assistance.
The Facts
What happens if one party to a contract fails to perform? Can the innocent party get all of its losses back? What happens if the losses are difficult to prove?
Here, we look at what you can claim and how to protect your position.
The general rule
Damages for breach of contract are usually intended to compensate the injured party for its losses arising naturally from the breach or which were within the parties' contemplation when the contract was made.
Although service of a statutory demand or winding-up petition on a company is a blunt and unsophisticated debt recovery tool, it will often have the desired effect for a creditor as they are seldom ignored and ignored only at the company's peril. It can often prompt payment of the sum due, or judgment owed, where previously there has been prevarication and empty promises of payment.
Here is a reminder of some important issues a (solvent) company should consider if a statutory demand or petition is served upon it.
Doing nothing is not an option