The English Supreme Court has considered various new categories of creditor claims against a company with unlimited liability in administration where, unusually, there was enough money to pay all creditors and a surplus existed.

In proceedings commonly referred to as the Waterfall I litigation, the Supreme Court considered issues relating to the distribution of funds from the estate of Lehman Brothers International Europe (in administration) (LBIE), in circumstances where there was a surplus of assets amounting to approximately £8 billion.

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

At first glance, it seems that cross-border insolvencies between the UK and EU are likely to become more time-consuming, complex and expensive post-Brexit. However, the situation may not be as dire as it first appears due to the existence of alternative legislation and the exemptions to the EU legislation. As with other areas of law, when it comes to insolvencies much will depend on what steps are taken to maintain the current arrangements with the EU or whether they fall away altogether.

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

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

Key Points