It has been held that full and frank disclosure was not provided to the Court by a Russian Liquidator in granting a Recognition Order in the UK, which resulted in the Recognition Order being set aside. The issue was determined despite the parties being in agreement that the Liquidator's claims should be withdrawn.
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.
Following our previous article about farms facing insolvency as a limited company, we will now discuss the implications of insolvency on a sole trader or partnership.
Farmers running their business as a sole trader could face personal bankruptcy in the event the business faces financial difficulty.
Alan Bennett and Crispin Jones successfully acted for Mr Dowling in his application to set aside a Statutory Demand served on him by Promontoria (Arrow) Limited ("Promontoria") in the sum of €6,338,675.93. The decision has wide reaching implications for creditors seeking to rely on guarantees.
In our update this month we take a look at a case in which a non-party costs order was made against a major shareholder in the insolvent claimant company. The court found that the shareholder was the real party to the litigation; it funded the litigation, it was exercising control over the litigation and it would have been the main beneficiary had the litigation succeeded. We cover this, and other issues affecting the insolvency and fraud industry:
Montpelier Business Reorganisation Ltd v Jones & Others (2017)
Background
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.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a term could not be implied into a conditional fee agreement between a liquidator and solicitors, and that the solicitors would only be paid out of recoveries made. However, the liquidator was not liable for the fees because of a common understanding between the parties. We cover this, and other issues affecting the insolvency and fraud industry, in our regular update:
It was ordered that the Administrators could distribute to unsecured creditors, 8 years after Nortel entered Administration, so long as a reserve was maintained in relation to potential expense claims.
Pearson v. Primeo Fund (Cayman Islands) [2017] UKPC 19
The Privy Council sitting as the final court of appeal for the Cayman Islands recently considered a case concerning prioritisation in a Liquidation between feeder hedge funds where the investment medium was redeemable shares.
Background
Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (the "Recast Insolvency Regulation") has come into force for any insolvency proceedings commenced on or after 27 June 2017. In line with EU Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000 (the "Original Insolvency Regulation"), the Recast Insolvency Regulation focusses on cross border recognition of Insolvency proceedings and, as a Regulation, it applies without the need for specific implementing legislation in each state.