In Lafferty v Official Assignee Gordon J considered Mr Lafferty's appeal of two decisions of the Official Assignee to refuse Mr Lafferty's applications under section 62(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 to enter or carry on business while bankrupt.

Gordon J dismissed the appeal on the basis that Mr Lafferty could not show that the Official Assignee had made an error of law, failed to take into account relevant considerations or was manifestly wrong in exercising its discretion under regulation 34 of the Insolvency Regulations 1970.

An application by New Zealand Life Care Limited (Life Care) for an order reversing the decision of the Official Assignee to reject its claim for $4.9m in the bankruptcy of Mr Harman was dismissed by the High Court in New Zealand Life Care Ltd v Official Assignee [2018] NZHC 17.  Life Care said that Mr Harman had guaranteed loans from Life Care to his companies, but accepted that it did not have a written guarantee signed by Mr Harman.  Instead it relied on Mr Harman's admission of the guarantee in affidavits made after his adjudication.

The Hobson Apartments suffer from water tightness issues.  Unusually for a unit development, the top floor apartment on level 12 owned by the appellant Manchester Securities, owned the exterior of its unit including the roof of the building rather than the Body Corporate.  Severe water damage was identified in October 2009.  Following a series of High Court decisions and one Court of Appeal decision, Manchester Securities was required to contribute certain amounts to the Body Corporate for repair costs.

Mr Hampton was adjudicated bankrupt five years previously.  Following his public examination and the filing of the Official Assignee's report, the Official Assignee and Commissioner of Inland Revenue (a creditor) accepted Mr Hampton should be discharged, but sought the imposition of conditions. 

Meem SL Limited was an unsuccessful start-up company in the United Kingdom.  The board resolved to put the company into administration and sell the business to a company owned by the directors.

The High Court in England was asked to consider sanctioning a scheme of arrangement between Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (LBIE) and certain of its creditors pursuant to Part 26 Companies Act 2006 (the equivalent of Part 15 Companies Act 1993).  This case was one of a number of proceedings involving the Lehman Brothers administration, many of which cases have reached the Supreme Court (see our earlier reports on 

Re The Joint Liquidators of Supreme Tycoon Limited (in liquidation in the British Virgin Islands) (08/02/2018, HCMP833/2017), [2018] HKCFI 277

The Hong Kong Court of First Instance considered whether an insolvent liquidation, commenced by the shareholder of a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, was eligible for common law recognition in Hong Kong.

Creditors' compromise Part 1: the New Zealand Supreme Court view

The UK and the US have historically been perceived as leading jurisdictions in the development of restructuring and insolvency law – to the extent that dozens of local insolvency regimes around the world have been modelled on some combination of their processes. Both regimes are highly sophisticated, and feature well-developed legislation supported by decades of case law that offers both debtors and creditors alike a degree of certainty and predictability that is not always available in other jurisdictions.

The Company Voluntary Arrangement (‘CVA’) was introduced into English insolvency law by the Insolvency Act 1986 (the ‘IA 1986’), as a result of recommendations made in the Cork Report1 in 1982.