In September 2014 administrators were appointed over Strada restaurants (trading under SSRL Realisations Limited). The restaurant was tenant of a unit in a shopping centre in Bloomsbury.

In the latest decision in Kao Chai-Chau Linda v Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn and others [2015] SGHC 260, the Singapore courts have taken another step toward controlling the costs involved in insolvency and restructuring situations. In Kao, an application was made to the Singapore High Court to tax the fees of court-appointed receivers and managers. The application was heard before the learned Justice Steven Chong.

There will only be minor changes in the levy rules for 2016/17. They will be practical or technical adjustments.

The PPF remains less than content with the covenant strength behind numbers of contingent asset guarantees. The guidance for 2016/17 will have more on the due diligence it expects.

The consultation document also covers:

This month’s summary of “also ran” update items forms a fairly eclectic mix, however some useful items can be pulled out of them.

PPF guidance to Insolvency Practitioners onpre-pack

Mistaken discharge of land mortgages and rectification atthe Land Registry – can a discharged mortgage secure asubsequent advance?

It is well-established law that a mortgage can be used to secure further advances made by a lender. What happens when a registered mortgage is mistakenly discharged at the Land Registry however? Can it be rectified and used as security for a subsequent advance? NRAM Plc v Evans and another - 2015 EWHC 1543 explores the issues.

The recent decision in Brooks and Willetts (Joint Liquidators of Robin Hood Centre plc) v Armstrong and Walker [2015] EWHC 2289 sets out guidance on the burden of proof for directors in wrongful trading claims when seeking to establish that they have taken every step to minimise the potential loss to creditors. We explore the issues raised for practitioners.

The background to the case

The question of appropriate action in the face of directors’ duties to creditors in the pre-insolvency “twilight zone” is a perennial one. In particular, the question of preservation of asset value (given all the hoo- ha about pre-packs), and whether to transfer out assets before insolvency has an impact on value, is fraught with difficulty. Two recent cases offer contrasting versions of how to go about it.

Background – Re French UK plc

We all know that statutory demand can be issued for undisputed debts in excess of £750, and if not satisfied for 21 days, the stat demand is prima facie evidence of insolvency. What happens where there are multiple dents of less than £750 each however? Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Ltd [2015] EWHC 1177 (Ch) provides an insight.

The background

Compensation for bankruptcy professionals employed in bankruptcy cases is governed by Section 330 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 330(a)(1) of the code provides, in pertinent part, that "the court may award to ... a professional person employed under Section 327 or 1103—(A) reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services rendered." Professionals whose employment is approved by the bankruptcy court consequently must file fee applications, to be reviewed and approved by the court for work performed in the bankruptcy case.

In Mark Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Limited, the High Court has held that statutory demands will not necessarily be set aside if the undisputed debt is less than £750, where there other debts which would take the cumulative total over this limit.

Facts

Mr Howell obtained finance from Lerwick in 2010 to develop a property and paid £2,750 to Lerwick to obtain a valuation. Mr Howell claimed that the valuation provided was sub-standard, and as a result there were delays in the development and its subsequent sale.