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.

With Law No. 132 of 6 August 2015 Italy’s parliament finally passed (with some amendments) Law Decree No. 83 of 27 June 2015 (as finally converted into law, the “Decree”), amending various provisions of Royal Decree No. 267 16 March 1942 (the “Bankruptcy Act”), the civil code and the code of civil procedure, and certain tax provisions. The amendments aim to facilitate debt restructurings, support distressed companies in their turnaround attempts, and foster quicker liquidations in bankruptcy proceedings.

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 23 June 2015, the Italian Cabinet approved Law Decree No. 83 which amends Royal Decree No. 267 16 March 1942 (the “Bankruptcy Act”), the civil code and the code of civil procedure, and certain tax provisions (the “Decree”). The amendments aim to facilitate debt restructurings, support distressed companies in their turnaround attempts, and foster quicker liquidations in bankruptcy proceedings.

Interim Financing

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).

Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast) (the “Regulation”) reforms the former European Regulation on Insolvency proceedings (EC) 1346/2000 (the “Original Regulation”). The aim of the Regulation, in particular, is to enhance the effective administration of cross-border insolvency proceedings, establishing a common framework for the benefit of all stakeholders.

The main features of the Regulation are:

The most recent decisions (by judges in Delaware and several other relevant jurisdictions) hold that fiduciary duties are owed to the corporation that the director and officer is serving and do not change whether the corporation is solvent, approaching insolvency (described as the “zone of insolvency”), or insolvent.

The Supreme Court has confirmed in Jetivia v Bilta that where a company brings a claim against its directors for losses caused by their wrongdoing, the directors cannot escape the claim by arguing that their actions are attributed to the company itself.

The Supreme Court also held that s.213 of the Insolvency Act, (which permits the Court to take action against those who  have conducted the business of a company in order to defraud creditors) was not jurisdictionally confined and applied to people and companies resident outside the UK.

Since at least the Delaware Supreme Court’s 2007 landmark decision in N. Am. Catholic Educ. Programming Found., Inc. v. Gheewalla, 930 A.2d 92, 101 (Del.