Obtaining Decree

After obtaining a Decree (or judgment in England) there are a number of steps that can be taken, if the debtor does not make payment, to recover the outstanding debt. In Scotland this process is known as “diligence”.

Charge for payment (“Charge”)

Lord Bannatyne has issued his opinion in respect the Note of The Provisional/Interim Liquidator of Equal Exchange Trading Limited [2018] CSOH 35 which gives guidance in respect of the role of the court reporter when fixing the remuneration of a liquidator. The full opinion can be viewed here.

Background

In LRH Services Ltd (in Liquidation) v Raymond Arthur Trew (1) Jason Marcus Brewer (2) and Derek O'Neill (3) [2018] EWHC 600 (Ch), LRH Services Ltd (LRH), acting by its liquidators, brought claims for breach of duty against three former directors. The claims arose from a reorganisation in 2009. LRH did not trade but had two trading subsidiaries (R and E) and it was wholly owned by CSGH, which also had another subsidiary in addition to LRH, CSG. Two of the directors of LRH were substantial shareholders in CSGH.

The reorganisation

Toone v Robbins 2018 [EWHC] 569 (Ch)

The lessons to takeaway

Directors who are also shareholders need to be careful when arranging how to take payments from a company. For tax reasons, dividends can be perceived to be an attractive way to take cash out of a company, but if there are insufficient distributable reserves, such payments are unlawful and can be clawed back.

Background

In our previous publication on the subject, we had discussed the changes introduced by the Ordinance dated 23 November 2017 (the Ordinance), amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) (see our Ergo Newsflash dated 24 November 2017).

Following recent media reports, with effect from Monday 15 January 2018 the Official Receiver has been appointed liquidator of a number of Carillion Group companies (Carillion Plc, Carillion Construction Limited, Carillion Services Limited, Planned Maintenance Engineering Limited, Carillion Integrated Services Limited and Carillion Services 2006 Limited). The Official Receiver will be supported by a number of Special Managers from PwC.

On 15 December 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) delivered a landmark judgment in Macquarie Bank v. Shilpi Cables, Civil Appeal 15135/2017 on whether Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (Code) is mandatory and whether a demand notice of an unpaid operational debt can be issued by a lawyer on behalf of the operational creditor. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of Macquarie Bank against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal) in Shilpi Cable Technologies v.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT) on 7 November 2017 passed a judgment in the case of M/s Speculum Plast Private Limited v. PTC Techno Private Limited, putting to rest the question of the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) to the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The present judgment comes in the wake of the decision of the NCLAT in Neelkanth Township and Construction Pvt. Ltd.

In a recent decision of M/s Ksheeraabd Constructions Private Limited v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that proceedings pending under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) does not constitute a ‘dispute’ under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and cannot come in the way of initiation of the insolvency resolution process, in terms of Section 9 of the Code.

Background