Registrar Baister overturned the adjudicator's decision in refusing to grant a Bankruptcy Order where the debtors COMI was an issue.

Mr Budniok, a German citizen who had recently moved to London, applied online for a Bankruptcy Order in England. After several requests for further information, the adjudicator was not satisfied Mr Budniok's centre of main interests ("COMI") was in England and as such refused the application. Mr Budniok appealed.

The Court has recently announced it will be publishing some standard forms for insolvency procedures, to be published under the Insolvency Practice Direction.

The forms are expected to be available towards the end of March.

This is the current list of what will be published. There may be some amendments.

Forms being hosted by Court under Practice Direction (these were identified as forms to "keep" from Schedule 4)

Administration

An update on the changes to CVA's brought about by the introduction of the New Rules.

1. CONSOLIDATION OF THE RULES

1.1. The New Rules applicable to CVA's are found at rules 2.1 to 2.45 of the New Rules, (formerly found between 1.1 to 1.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 ("IR86")). There has been an element of consolidation of IR86 applicable to CVA's and relating to:

The language of the rules has been amended and there is now more reference to delivery of documents rather than service. Rules 1.40 - 1.53 set out rules relating to delivery wherever documents are required to be delivered by the new rules.

These rules include the following headings:

Changes to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("Act")

SBEEA 2015 makes a host of supplemental amendments to the Act, the general effect of which is remove references to creditors' meetings and replace them with the alternative decision processes.

As a consequence:

This article was first published in The Gazette, and the original article can be found online here.

It’s important to consider all your options before opting for bankruptcy. David Pomeroy and Rachel Maddocks, of Ashfords, explain.

This article was first published in Growth Business, and the original article can be found online here.

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York recently granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first cause of action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), on the ground that plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead that the communications from defendant were sent in an attempt to collect a debt. SeeBurns v. Seterus, Inc., 2017 WL 104735 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2017). In 2005, plaintiff signed a note and mortgage secured by her residence.

The High Court considers questions relating to the location of three companies' COMIs and an alleged "improper motive" regarding the appointment of administrators

(1) SIMON ROBERT THOMAS (2) ARRON KENDALL v (1) FROGMORE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS GP1 LTD (2) LINDA NICHOL (3) CHARLES SPARY (4) STUART JENKIN (5) NATIONWIDE BUILDING SOCIETY : (1) FROGMORE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS GP1 LTD (2) LINDA NICOL (3) CHARLES SPARY (4) STUART JENKIN v (1) SIMON ROBERT THOMAS (2) ARRON KENDALL (3) NATIONWIDE BUILDING SOCIETY sub noms (1) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (KNOWLE) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) (2) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (ELLESMERE PORT) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) (3) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (BELLE VALE) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2017] EWHC 25 (Ch)