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
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.
The Tribunal has upheld HMRC's decision that a company (Danesmoor Ltd) should not be entitled to recover input VAT incurred on professional fees for a corporate restructuring. HMRC had not allowed the recovery of the input VAT on the grounds that the services were not provided to the company. The appellant argued that the advisors had been engaged and paid for by the company directly in connection with the restructuring and as such the input VAT should be recoverable.
On July 28, 2015, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC provided guidance to 119 firms that will be filing updated resolution plans in December 2015. These firms include three nonbank financial companies: American International Group, Inc., Prudential Financial, Inc., and General Electric Capital Corporation. Based on a review of the plans submitted in 2014, the agencies have provided direction to each firm with respect to their upcoming resolution plans.
On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that claims asserted by counterparties in relation to bilateral repurchase agreements do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).
In a May 4, 2015 opinion1 , the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 repayment plan is not a final order subject to immediate appeal. The Supreme Court found that, in contrast to an order confirming a plan or dismissing a case, an order denying confirmation of a plan neither alters the status quo nor fixes the rights and obligations of the parties. Although the decision arose in the context of a chapter 13 plan, it should apply with equal force to chapter 11 cases.
Recent weeks have seen a number of decisions concerning liquidations – in this article we explore three of the more interesting ones.
1) Overseas application of s.213 - Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23
The past three months have seen the publication of a spate of forthcoming regulatory and legislative changes. In this bulletin we investigate some of the more significant developments.
Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 2015 – threshold for bankruptcy petitions
This order, which comes into effect on 1 October 2015, makes amendments to section 267(4) IA 1986, increasing the threshold for bankruptcy petitions to £5,000 (currently £750).
On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which had approved the structured dismissal of the Chapter 11 cases of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. The Court of Appeals first held that structured dismissals are not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code, and then upheld the structured dismissal in the Jevic case, despite the fact that the settlement embodied in the structured dismissal order deviated from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.
In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court: