Application for a freezing order in support of foreign proceedings/appointment of a receiver and a power of attorney
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2015/3383.html
The applicants (based in the UAE and Georgia) sought freezing orders against the respondents in support of proceedings taking place overseas. The respondents are LLPs registered in England and Wales and owned by a Georgian national.
A number of recent High Court cases have highlighted the difficulties being faced by receivers in taking possession of agricultural lands. This is a critical issue for receivers who are being faced with mounting costs and delay as a result of the actions of uncooperative borrowers and / or their agents. The cases have highlighted the potential need for greater judicial resources and better and more vigorous case management.
Receivers appointed over agricultural lands are increasingly resorting to the High Court in order to:
The High Court has confirmed that it does not have a role in examining the reasonableness of a creditor’s vote on a personal insolvency arrangement when considering if a bankruptcy petition should be adjourned.
In a number of recent cases, debtors:
Court of Appeal orders disclosure in relation to freezing order and cross-undertaking from a liquidator
Insolvency practitioners often encounter difficulties when trying to sell properties in residential developments because an original management company has been struck off the Register of Companies. The standard approach can be laborious and costly. A more cost efficient alternative is often available.
Whether insurer liable to repay purchasers’ deposits following dissolution of developer/policy interpretation
Historically, HMRC has allowed insolvency practitioners to, at an early stage following their
appointment, cancel the VAT registration of the insolvent business. Practitioners have then been
entitled to account for VAT on any subsequent supplies using HMRC’s form VAT 833 (Statement of
Value Added Tax on goods sold in satisfaction of a debt).
In Bailey & Others (Joint Liquidators of D&D Wines International Limited) v Angove’s Pty Limited1, the Court of Appeal overturned a decision of the High Court, and so permitted the liquidator of an insolvent agent to recover funds due to it from end-customers despite the agency having been terminated.
Background
InJ.D. Brian Ltd (in liquidation) & Others the High Court held that, where a floating charge crystallised prior to the commencement of a winding-up, the preferential creditors still had priority pursuant to in section 285 of the Companies Act 1963 over the holder of what had become a fixed charge.