In Re Mark Irwin Forstater [2015] BPIR, the petitioning creditor presented a bankruptcy petition against the debtor, Mr Forstater, on 13 June 2014. It first came before the court on 30 July 2014, when it was adjourned to allow the  debtor to take legal advice. At the adjourned hearing on 12 August 2014, the debtor indicated that he intended to pursue an IVA. The hearing was adjourned again to await the outcome of a meeting of creditors. The meeting of creditors was itself adjourned for 14 days from 1 September 2014 to 15 September 2014.

Income payments orders (IPOs) are an essential tool for the trustee in bankruptcy in realising a bankrupt’s assets. Until recently, it had been assumed that, absent circumstances akin to fraud, a trustee in bankruptcy could not touch a bankrupt’s undrawn pension. However, in Raithatha v Williamson, the court decided that an income payments order may be made where the bankrupt has an entitlement to elect to draw a pension but has not exercised it at the time of the application. 

Drawn versus undrawn

In January 2015, the Government published legislation which proposes to increase the level of debt necessary for a creditor to present a bankruptcy petition to £5,000 from 1 October 2015 (Draft Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 2015). This represents a significant increase on the current law which allows a petition to be presented on a debt of just £750. It has apparently been proposed to dissuade creditors from using this arguably aggressive mechanism to collect relatively low level debts.

Debt Relief Orders

Introduction

Carey Olsen’s restructuring and insolvency team has succeeded in applying to the Royal Court for the restoration of K2 Insurance Limited (“K2”), a liquidated and dissolved company, enabling the company to subsequently recover a substantial asset. Advocate David Jones and Associate Harry Stirk acted for Ian Damarell of BDO Limited, the liquidator of K2.

The Facts

This article focuses on the judgments delivered in June and October 2014 by the Guernsey Court  of Appeal in the long-running Tchenguiz litigation [Investec Trust (Guernsey) Limited and Another v Glenalla Properties Limited and Others]. The litigation concerned the liabilities of a trustee to creditors in circumstances where the creditor claims far outweighed the value of the trust fund.

A consultation process to update the insolvency laws and practices in Guernsey has been launched by a government department in the island with businesses, industry bodies, lawyers and insolvency practitioners being invited to respond to the process before 31 December 2014. 

David Jones a restructuring and insolvency expert from Carey Olsen was invited to participate as part of the Commerce and Employment Department’s working party that reviewed the laws which raise a number of key areas for change.

WHAT IS FATCA?

A recent case heard before the Royal Court in Guernsey has provided clear guidance on the application of the principle of modified universalism to insolvency matters in Guernsey.

Costs are the price that creditors pay for an insolvency practitioner’s (“IP”) expertise and time in dealing with a trading bankrupt or insolvent business. However, where the assets are insufficient to meet the existing debts, the imposition of a practitioner’s fees and expenses being paid out in priority can send some “over the edge” and all practitioners have the scars to prove it. This article explores the developing general principles and major pitfalls and how to avoid them.

The Royal Court has recently given clear guidance on the application of the principle of modified universalism to insolvency matters in Guernsey. The case of EFG Private Bank (Channel Islands) Ltd  v. BC Capital Group (in liquidation) & Ors [34/2013] will have significant consequences for cross- border insolvencies with a Guernsey element, as it sets out for the first time the principles which the Royal Court should consider when assessing the nature and extent of its obligation to provide “active assistance” to foreign insolvency proceedings.