Income payments orders (IPOs) are an essential tool for the trustee in bankruptcy in realising a bankrupt’s assets. Until recently, it had been assumed that, absent circumstances akin to fraud, a trustee in bankruptcy could not touch a bankrupt’s undrawn pension. However, in Raithatha v Williamson, the court decided that an income payments order may be made where the bankrupt has an entitlement to elect to draw a pension but has not exercised it at the time of the application. 

Drawn versus undrawn

In January 2015, the Government published legislation which proposes to increase the level of debt necessary for a creditor to present a bankruptcy petition to £5,000 from 1 October 2015 (Draft Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 2015). This represents a significant increase on the current law which allows a petition to be presented on a debt of just £750. It has apparently been proposed to dissuade creditors from using this arguably aggressive mechanism to collect relatively low level debts.

Debt Relief Orders

On January 5, 2015, HM Treasury published the Bank Recovery and Resolution Order 2014 (“BRRO”) and the Banks and Building Societies (Depositor Preference and Priorities) Order 2014 (“BBSO”). The Banking Act 2009 (Restriction of Special Bail-in Provision, etc.) Order 2014 and the Banking Act 2009 (Mandatory Compensation Arrangements following Bail-in)  Regulations 2014 were published in December 2014.

On December 19, 2014, the UK Insolvency Service reported that two former directors of Connaught Asset Management, Nigel Walter and Michael Anthony Davies, have both been disqualified from controlling or managing a company for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively. The former directors allowed the misuse of up to £106m of investor money by failing to review the progress on loans made with monies borrowed from funds and not ensuring the money was repaid to the fund following loan completion.

The press release is available at:

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.

Facing the imminent bankruptcy of the federal Highway Trust Fund (the “HTF”) and the specter of delays and reductions in payments from the HTF to the States, the US Congress last week passed the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014, which extended federal surface transportation programs and funding through May 2015. We summarize below the key elements of the Act.

SHAREHOLDERS ARBITRATION
In a historic USD 50 billion award rendered on July 18, 
2014, an Arbitral Tribunal constituted pursuant to the 
Energy Charter Treaty held unanimously that the Russian 
Federation breached its international obligations under the 
Energy Charter Treaty by destroying Yukos Oil Company 
and appropriating its assets. 
The Tribunal, applying the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and sitting in The 
ague under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration ordered the 

Costs are the price that creditors pay for an insolvency practitioner’s (“IP”) expertise and time in dealing with a trading bankrupt or insolvent business. However, where the assets are insufficient to meet the existing debts, the imposition of a practitioner’s fees and expenses being paid out in priority can send some “over the edge” and all practitioners have the scars to prove it. This article explores the developing general principles and major pitfalls and how to avoid them.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Neumans LLP v Andrew Andronikou & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 916 has provided some useful guidance to insolvency practitioners on the courts’ approach to administration and liquidation expenses.

Pre-match warm up

Following the announcement that Crystal Palace Football Club had gone into administration in January 2010, the club's administrator wanted to sell the club as a going concern. Shortly after he  signed a sale and purchase agreement with the newly formed Crystal Palace Football Consortium (CPFC) he discovered that the club had severe financial problems and decided to 'mothball' the club during the out of season period, in the hope of selling it in the future. However CPFC then decided to withdraw its offer for the club and on 28 May 2010 the four claimants were made redundant.