The High Court confirmed that it is generally not appropriate to present a winding up petition to recover sums due under a construction contract, particularly where those sums are disputed or there is a legitimate cross claim.

A professional negligence claim against trustees in bankruptcy alleging that they had unnecessarily prolonged the bankruptcies and caused the bankrupts’ loss failed. The Trustees had agreed not to take steps in the bankruptcies while Dr Oraki and her husband made repeated applications to set aside the judgment upon which their bankruptcy orders were made and annul their bankruptcies under s 282(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986, which they eventually succeeded in doing.

'B’ appealed an Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) s 279(3) order suspending her discharge from bankruptcy until ‘T’ confirmed B had complied with her IA 1986 duties. B traded through a company, which entered voluntary liquidation in November 2014. B’s personal guarantee of company debt led to a bankruptcy order in February 2015. 

This case arose from the ongoing administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (‘LBIE’). The appeal considered the proper ranking of certain subordinated debt in the insolvency ‘waterfall’, among other matters.

Held

The first issue concerned the construction of debt instruments subordinated to amounts ‘payable in the insolvency’. It was held that such amounts included statutory interest and non-provable debts, and accordingly those liabilities must be met before any balance could be used to pay off the subordinated loans.

The Defendant (‘D’) was a director of the Claimant, (‘RHIL’) and its subsidiary, (‘BTSC’), which provided training courses. In 2010 D appointed MG as administrator of BTSC and MG arranged a pre-pack sale of the business. The purchaser paid nothing for the business but assumed responsibility for the training, thereby limiting BTSC’s liability for course fee refunds.

Pearson v. Primeo Fund (Cayman Islands) [2017] UKPC 19

The Privy Council sitting as the final court of appeal for the Cayman Islands recently considered a case concerning prioritisation in a Liquidation between feeder hedge funds where the investment medium was redeemable shares.

Background

The Privy Council sitting as the final court of appeal for the Cayman Islands recently considered a case concerning prioritisation in a Liquidation between feeder hedge funds where the investment medium was redeemable shares.

Background

The appellant in this case was the Liquidator of Herald Fund SPC ("Herald"). Herald is a Cayman Islands registered hedge fund that invested heavily into Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC, the historic Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff that collapsed spectacularly in 2008.

Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (the "Recast Insolvency Regulation") has come into force for any insolvency proceedings commenced on or after 27 June 2017. In line with EU Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000 (the "Original Insolvency Regulation"), the Recast Insolvency Regulation focusses on cross border recognition of Insolvency proceedings and, as a Regulation, it applies without the need for specific implementing legislation in each state.

Changes to the Australian Insolvency regime continue to progress through the legislature as part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No.2) Bill 2017. The amendments are intended to allow companies and directors protections whilst they informally restructure, rather than requiring potentially premature entry into formal insolvency proceedings. It is hoped this will increase the turn-around prospects of those companies.

This case involved an application for security for costs against Mr Nogotkov who is, or claims to be, the Liquidator appointed by a Russian court of Dalnyaya Step LLC ("DSL").