In FCA v Carillion [2021] EWCH 2871 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) enforcement action against Carillion Plc (in Liquidation) (Carillion) pursuant to certain provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) does not constitute an “action or proceeding” and therefore falls outside of the scope of the statutory stay imposed by section 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).
Section 130(2) of the Act
Regulations have been published which, from 1 October 2021, will change the current restrictions on the use of winding up petitions (the regulations). A link to the regulations can be found here.
In summary, the regulations partially lift the temporary restriction on the use of winding up petitions imposed by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 and provide that:
Following a government announcement on 16 June, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (the Regulations) have been laid before Parliament, coming into force on 22 June.
After a somewhat leisurely start, case law regarding the new restructuring plan in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 now seems to be picking up pace.
On 13 January 2020, the High Court sanctioned the restructuring plans proposed by three UK companies in the DeepOcean group, under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006.
On 29 January 2020, the Insolvency Service published its quarterly insolvency statistics for October to December 2020 (Q3 2020).
The Court of Appeal judgment handed down on 9 November 2020 in the case of HH Aluminium & Building Products Ltd and another v Bell and another (Joint Trustees In Bankruptcy of Ide) [2020] EWCA Civ 1469 provides a clear warning to applicants: serve your application notice without delay, particularly if a limitation period is close to expiry.
Factual background:
In the recent case of Patel v Barlow's Solicitors and others [2020] 2753 (Ch) the High Court found that a Quistclose Trust arose in a situation where solicitors were forwarded monies by a third party for a specific purpose.
In the recent case of Patel v Barlow’s Solicitors and others [2020] 2753 (Ch) the High Court found that a Quistclose Trust arose in a situation where solicitors were forwarded monies by a third party for a specific purpose.
Background
In this article we will cover the notice requirements for an out of court administration appointment by a company or its directors, and look at the recent case of Re Tokenhouse VB Ltd (Formerly VAT Bridge 7 Ltd) [2020] EWHC 3171 (Ch).
The notice requirements