You have instructions to commence proceedings for damages for personal injury against a defendant company only to find that the company has entered in to a Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”). What procedural issues arise and what steps should be taken?
What is a CVA?
The long-awaited new Practice Direction – Insolvency Proceedings (PDIP), which came into force on 25 April 2018, has now brought procedure into line with the changes introduced by the significant amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act) introduced last year and the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), as amended. This has finally brought to an end the agonisingly long period (over 12 months) in which the provisions of the previous Practice Direction have been at odds with the Act as amended and IR 2016.
In light of the radically and rapidly changing face of bricks and mortar retail, cases providing guidance on the way in which liabilities are to be dealt with in the course of the restructuring / insolvency process are extremely valuable not only for stakeholders and practitioners dealing with the consequences of those processes but also to those guiding and devising the strategies in the first instance.
Wright and Rowley v Prudential Assurance Company Limited is one such case arising out of the collapse of the British Home Stores (‘BHS’) retailing group in 2016.
Für die Einordnung des Nachteilsausgleichs als Masseverbindlichkeit oder als Insolvenzforderung ist der Zeitpunkt der Durchführung der Betriebsänderung entscheidend.
Qualifizierung des Annahmeverzugslohns als Neuforderung oder Altmasseverbindlichkeit von Kündigungsmöglichkeit vor Entstehung des Lohnanspruchs abhängig.
Ob eine Forderung in der Insolvenz als Neuforderung oder Altmasseverbindlichkeit eingestuft wird, ist in der Praxis, auf Grund der gesetzlichen Reihenfolge der Befriedigung, von wesentlicher Bedeutung.
This article was first published for Thomson Reuters' Practical Law Dispute Resolution Blog.
On 20 October 2017 Registrar Derrett handed down judgment in the case of Thomas v Haederle (unreported), in which she gave reasons for dismissing a bankruptcy petition presented by the debtor (T) in the County Court at Norwich on 4 December 2014, pursuant to s 272 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86), as it then was.
Masseunzulänglichkeit führt zu erneuter Zäsur: Privilegierung als Neumasseverbindlichkeit gilt nur für anteiligen Zeitraum ab Masseunzulänglichkeit
This interview was conducted by Lucy Trevelyan at LexisNexis. The views expressed by the interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Property Analysis: A recent Court of Appeal decision on the payment of service charges, while correct in principal, was wrong on the facts, according to Peter Petts, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers.
Original News
Skelton and others v DBS Homes (Kings Hill) Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1139, All ER (D) 196 (Jul)