Key points

• Where the underlying liability on which a bankruptcy order is made is subsequently set aside, the correct remedy is rescission under s.375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986.

• Annulment under s.282(1)(a) is the appropriate remedy when, on grounds existing at the time of making the bankruptcy order, the order ought not to have been made.

The facts

A private member's bill, Bill C-372, was introduced on 17 October 2017 with proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act. The Bill seeks to protect retired workers whose pensions and group insurance plans are at risk if their previous employer goes bankrupt or undergoes restructuring. The Bill would provide for priority status for claims in respect of underfunded pension plans, as well as claims arising as a result of an employer terminating its participation in a group insurance plan.

In Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Ltd and others [2017] EWHC 2663 (Comm), the High Court held that a claim under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") where it was not brought by an insolvent company within the jursdiction did not fall within the jurisdictional gateways under paragraph 3.1 CPR PD 6B.

An application was made for recognition in Great Britain under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("CBIR") of new legislation in Croatia known as "Extraordinary Administration Proceeding".

Key point

• In certain circumstances the court will look to parallel statutory provisions where existing applicable statute does not accommodate the situation, as long as the latter is not offended, expanded or altered by doing so.

The facts

This application for directions was brought by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (the “Company”) on:

Key Points

• Statutory powers are to be exercised in accordance with a company’s articles of association
• The Duomatic principle cannot simply be used as a bandage to cure a company’s procedural errors

The Facts

This appeal considered whether the sole director of a company, whose articles required two directors for its board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22 Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The Dutch government has published a new draft of the Dutch Continuity of Enterprises Act II (the "WCO II") which seeks to introduce pre-insolvency measures in the Netherlands.

This case considers section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986, namely the rules on avoidance of certain floating charges, and provides analysis of the application of s245 notwithstanding the Liquidation originated in the British Virgin Islands.

Key points

• The dismissal of the appellant’s previous application for an annulment of a bankruptcy order was a serious procedural irregularity
• A court may annul a bankruptcy order under s 282 IA 1986 if it is satisfied that the order ought not to have been made based on grounds existing at the time the order was made
• In relation to appeals made pursuant to s 375 IA 1986 to review or rescind the decision of a lower court, the court may consider fresh material.

The facts

The German Bundestag has recently passed a new law as a result of a long running drive to reform how group insolvencies are to be dealt with in the jurisdiction. The reforms were suspended whilst the European Union formulated the Recast Insolvency Regulation, but, the German legislation has been finalised and the reforms effective from 21 April 2018.