Does section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986 void payments made by the insolvent company’s bank after the presentation of a winding-up petition but pursuant to payment instructions issued by the company before presentation of the petition?
- Novità nel processo esecutivo introdotte con il DL 59/2016
E’ entrato in vigore il 4 maggio 2016 il DL 59/2016 “Disposizioni urgenti in materia di procedure esecutive e concorsuali, nonché a favore degli investitori in banche in liquidazione”. Tale decreto ha introdotto una serie di modifiche volte a facilitare e velocizzare il recupero dei crediti.
On May 4th, 2016, Law Decree no. 59/2016 entered into force with the name “Urgent provisions regarding enforcement and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as measures in favor of the investors of banks in liquidation”. Such decree introduced a variety of modifications aimed at facilitating and speeding up the debt recovery.
The two aspects with the higher impact concern the provisions regarding the seizure and the ones about the immediate enforceability of the orders of payment.
Il decreto legge n. 59 del 3 maggio 2016, pubblicato in pari data in Gazzetta Ufficiale Serie Generale n. 102, entra in vigore in data odierna, 4 maggio 2016, pur richiedendo formale conversione in legge entro 60 giorni, pena la perdita di efficacia.
Recent key reforms have been brought to Italian Law by Law Decree no. 59 of 3 May 2016, which is already in force although it will require formal conversion into Law within 60 days in order not to lose its validity.
Among the provisions of the Law Decree, of particular relevance are the introduction of a new type of floating charge, namely “non-possessory pledge”, and the possibility for the lender to appropriate the secured property in case of continuing default by the borrower.
The serious consequences of an adjudication of bankruptcy against an individual has long justified the strict requirement that bankruptcy petitions be personally served. Rule 6.14 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 requires as much, and says that ‘service shall be effected by delivering to [the debtor] a sealed copy of the petition’. But what constitutes delivery where the debtor declines to accept the petition from the process server?
The applicant applied to strike out a winding up petition that had been presented against it. The parties had entered into two construction contracts under which the applicant had subcontracted the fabrication and erection of steelworks to the respondent in relation to two separate sites. The contracts failed to provide an adequate mechanism for payment such that the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (HGCRA 1996) and the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (as amended) applied.
Picard, a trustee in bankruptcy, launched proceedings under the anti-avoidance provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code against Vizcaya, a BVI investment fund which had invested approximately $330m with Bernard Madoff via his New York firm. Prior to his fraud being discovered in late 2008, Vizcaya had been repaid $180m.Picard obtained a judgment against Vizcaya and its shareholders in the New York Bankruptcy Court. The judgment against Vizcaya was for $180m, $74m of which had been transferred to its Gibraltar holdings.
OTL was placed into compulsory liquidation. Prior to this it transferred monies to a trust located in HK of which N was perceived to be the principal trustee. The OR as liquidator applied for an order under s 236(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) that N produce a witness statement with supporting documents in relation to the company’s affairs. The primary question for HHJ Hodge QC was whether s 236(3) of the IA 1986 could have extra-territorial effect as N was resident in HK.
Held
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding at trial of HHJ Bird (sitting in the High Court) that save where there is fraud, a debtor is not legally obliged to volunteer information to an assignee regarding his arrangement with the assignor. The dispute arose because Bibby, a factor (and ‘Assignee’), purchased debts from Morleys Ltd (‘the Assignor’), owed to it by HFD Ltd and MCD Ltd (the ‘Customers’/‘Debtors’). The contract between the Assignor and Customers was such that the latter were entitled to a rebate, at the beginning of each calendar year, on purchases made.