In brief
The courts were busy in the second half of 2021 with developments in the space where insolvency law and environmental law overlap.
In Victoria, the Court of Appeal has affirmed the potential for a liquidator to be personally liable, and for there to be a prospective ground to block the disclaimer of contaminated land, where the liquidator has the benefit of a third-party indemnity for environmental exposures.1
In brief
The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act ("Act") received royal assent on 15 December 2021.
The Act extends the scope of powers available to the Insolvency Service to address the issue of directors dissolving companies to avoid paying their liabilities.
In brief
The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act ("Act") received royal assent on 15 December 2021.
The Act extends the scope of powers available to the Insolvency Service to address the issue of directors dissolving companies to avoid paying their liabilities.
According to a recent decision by the High Court in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court, an Administrator is an officer of a company in administration for the purpose of collective redundancy rules.
This means an Administrator can be prosecuted personally for failing to notify the Insolvency Service of collective redundancies being made by the company in administration.
Background law
Claims are just another asset of the insolvency practitioner: to gather in and realise for creditors’ benefit.
Success in managing insolvency estate claims however, is all about effective risk management. As a speculative contingent asset, the risks involved in handling claims as assets are greater and this risk requires constant evaluation as the claim progresses. Here are 6 issues to have under control throughout.
1. RECOVERABILITY – WHERE IS THE MONEY?
(Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel; Emanuel v Promontoria (Oak) Ltd; Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd v Samra; Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd v Simpson & Anor; Bibby Invoice Discounting Ltd v Thompson Facilities and Project Management Services Ltd & Anor)
Introduction
This morning, the Court of Appeal has handed down landmark guidance on how far a defendant in litigation can look under the bonnet of their pursuer's commercial transactional documents and check out the mechanical parts of a deal to which the defendant is not party.
The High Court, in its recent judgment In the matter of ipagoo LLP (in administration) [2021] EWHC 2163 (Ch) (Ipagoo), has determined that no statutory trust exists over safeguarded funds held under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMRs). This can be contrasted with the decision In Re Supercapital [2020] EWHC 1685 (Ch) (Supercapital) which found that the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (PSRs) create a statutory trust over safeguarded funds.
In our previous commentary, we concluded that the ‘The Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021’ (Regulations) had enacted a tick-box exercise for experienced market participants.
In brief
"All happy families are alike, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. With apologies to Tolstoy, the Akhmedov family is one of the unhappiest ever to have appeared in my courtroom." – Mrs. Justice Knowles