The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in the case of The Trustees of Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme –v- Olympic Airlines SA. Pitmans’ Trustee company, PTL, were the Appellants.
The question at issue was what connection must a foreign company, that has its Centre of Main Interests (COMI) in another EU country, have within the United Kingdom, to entitle an English Court to wind it up.
In the recent decision of Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) the High Court held that a Bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the Bankrupt was entitled within the meaning of section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 and so refused to make an Income Payments Order. This contradicted the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and has created uncertainty as to which is the correct position. The Horton case is being appealed.
The High Court has held that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the bankrupt was entitled and so refused to make an income payments order, contradicting the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson which held that a bankrupt’s right to draw income from a personal pension may be subject to an income payments order even if the individual has yet to draw his pension.
Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch)
Dealing a major blow to the trustee’s efforts to recover fraudulent transfers on behalf of the bankruptcy estate of the company run by Bernard Madoff, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held in SIPC v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC1 that the Bankruptcy Code cannot be used to recover fraudulent transfers of funds that occur entirely outside the United States.
Since the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (“1999 Act”), it has been understood that the rights of a bankrupt under a tax approved pension plan are excluded from the bankruptcy estate and do not vest in his Trustee in Bankruptcy.
That said, where a Bankrupt was already drawing an income from his pension, his Trustee could seek an Income Payments Order over that income.
The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment for landlords and insolvency practitioners, in the case of Jervis v Pillar Denton; re Games Station (“Game”).
According to The Times (25 October 2013) the British Property Federation has advised landlords to take larger rent deposits to reduce losses caused by the insolvency of a tenant.
A new Statement of Insolvency Practice relating to pre-packaged sales in Administration has been issued and has effect from 1 November 2013.
This provides for earlier notification to creditors of the sale and the justification for it and provides a more extensive list of information that must be included.
The main changes are:
The Court of Appeal’s decision in the matters of Nortel GMBH and Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (both in administration) and other companies has been overturned by the Supreme Court. Liabilities imposed on insolvent companies by the Pensions Regulator (“tPR”) will not be treated as an expense of the insolvency, which would be payable by the office holder in advance of making payment of his own remuneration or to floating charge holders. The liability will rank as an unsecured debt rateably with all other unsecured creditors.
The Landlords of units occupied by Game have been given permission by the Court to appeal to the Court of appeal against the principles laid down in Goldacre (Offices) Ltd v Nortel Networks UK Ltd (In Administration) [2009] EWHC 3389 (Ch) [2010] Ch 455 that rent falling due before the commencement of an administration does not fall to be paid as an expense of the administration.