With the current financial difficulties faced by the oil & gas industry, directors of companies incorporated in England and Wales must be mindful of their duties and responsibilities to the company as well as the potential personal liability that could arise from breaching those duties and responsibilities in the context of an insolvency.
Who qualifies as a director?
Court of Appeal orders disclosure in relation to freezing order and cross-undertaking from a liquidator
In the recent decision of Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) the High Court held that a Bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the Bankrupt was entitled within the meaning of section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 and so refused to make an Income Payments Order. This contradicted the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and has created uncertainty as to which is the correct position. The Horton case is being appealed.
The High Court has held that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the bankrupt was entitled and so refused to make an income payments order, contradicting the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson which held that a bankrupt’s right to draw income from a personal pension may be subject to an income payments order even if the individual has yet to draw his pension.
Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch)
This article provides an essential update for insolvency practitioners on the proposed Insolvency Rules 2015 and the end of the insolvency exemption on Conditional Fee Agreements.
The end of the CFA?
A party with a statutory right to an admiralty claim in rem, which had issued its claim after the Admiralty court had ordered the sale of a vessel, did not lose its right to enforce the claim1. The claim in rem could be enforced against the sale proceeds provided that the person liable in personam was the beneficial owner of the sale proceeds.
Facts
At the end of October the Pension Protection Fund announced that it had come to an agreement with Monarch Airlines and the Pensions Regulator to accept the Monarch Airlines Limited Retirement Benefit Scheme into a PPF assessment period. The agreement, reached after discussions between the parties and the Trustees of the Scheme will enable the airline to restructure its business and accept £125m in new capital and liquidity facilities from Greybull Capital LLP in return for a 90 per cent shareholding.
The High Court ruling in Schroder Exempt Property Unit Trust and another v Birmingham City Council [2014] EWHC 2207 provides helpful clarification on whether or not a landlord is liable to pay business rates on an empty property following the liquidation of a tenant and the subsequent disclaimer of the lease.
Background
New legislation came in to force on 21 July 2014 with the intention of granting entry to the Pension Protection Fund (the “PPF”) for those members of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme (the “Scheme”). The members of the Scheme had previously been denied entry as a result of a Court of Appeal decision in the case of the Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA.
Whether insurer liable to repay purchasers’ deposits following dissolution of developer/policy interpretation