The High Court decision in Re All Star Leisure (Group) Limited (2019), which confirmed the validity of an administration appointment by a qualified floating charge holder (QFCH) out of court hours by CE-Filing, will be welcomed.
The decision accepted that the rules did not currently provide for such an out of hours appointment to take place but it confirmed it was a defect capable of being cured and, perhaps more importantly, the court also stressed the need for an urgent review of the rules so that there is no doubt such an appointment could be made.
In certain circumstances, if a claim is proven, the defendant will be able to offset monies that are due to it from the claimant - this is known as set off.
Here, we cover the basics of set off, including the different types of set off and key points you need to know.
What is set off?
Where the right of set off arises, it can act as a defence to part or the whole of a claim.
In our update this month we take a look at some recent decisions that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:
Creditor not obliged to take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security
No duty of care owed for negligent bank reference to undisclosed principal
The Supreme Court has held that a bank which negligently provided a favourable credit reference for one of its customers did not owe a duty of care to an undisclosed principal who acted on that reference.
There has been a series of high profile tenant company voluntary arrangements (CVAs), particularly in the retail and casual dining sectors. Many landlords have been hit by closure of underperforming stores, and by rent cuts on those remaining open. Here we outline ten points for landlords on what CVAs are, how they are entered into and what landlords can do to protect themselves.
What is a CVA?
A CVA is a statutory process, supervised by an insolvency practitioner. It allows a company in financial difficulty to:
In our update this month we take a look at some of the recent cases that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:
(12) 信托计划中受托人对股权投资应当如何进行管理?
实践中,信托计划受托人取得股权主要基于两种情形,一是基于受托而取得股权,即委托人将自己合法持有的股权作为信托财产,转移至受托人管理和处分;二是基于投资而取得股权,即委托人先把自己合法持有的信托资金或其他财产转移至受托人,进而由受托人通过管理、运用该等受托财产,以增资、受让等方式投资取得股权并对该等股权进行管理和处分。
基于受托人取得股权的不同情形,受托人对股权投资的管理责任不完全相同。
如受托人系基于受托取得股权,受托人的股东身份更接近“名义股东”,其对投资股权的管理主要受限于信托合同约定的信托财产的运用及管理方式。
The Court of Appeal considers 'reasonable adjustment' in the context of possession proceedings
The first case in which the Equalities legislation has been raised as a defence to a mortgagee's claim for possession has recently been before the Court of Appeal.
In our update this month we take a look at three cases that provide helpful clarification from the courts on issues that will be of interest to the insolvency and fraud industry - the key message from each case confirms:
Defendant's threat of insolvency did not prevent adjudicator's decision being enforced.