The Court of Appeal has resolved previously conflicting case law to confirm that a bankrupt cannot be obliged to crystallise his pension benefits in order to produce income to pay off creditors.
Introduction
On 17 June 2016, the First-tier Tribunal (in Farnborough Airport Properties Ltd v HMRC2) held that the appointment of a receiver over a (would-be surrendering) group company meant that “arrangements” were in place for the company to no longer be under the same “control” as would-be claimant group companies.
New insolvency fees and deposits introduced on 21 July 2016
From 21 July 2016, insolvency fees for bankruptcy and company insolvency are set to change. This is the outcome from the funding review the Insolvency Service has undertaken with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and HM Treasury and is to come into force in the shape of The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2016 (SI 2016/692).
You will be pleased, I hope, to hear that in this blog I shall largely be steering the referendum itself a wide berth; this is not because the prospect of Brexit would not impact greatly on insolvency law and practice (it undoubtedly would) but because I have already blogged on that topic in March and issued press releases on it in so far as it affects business decision making under the R3 banner, but mainly
This blogpost was first published as an edited article in Business Magazine’s June 2016 edition (available here).
Directors at risk in the twilight zone
From 1 April 2016, conditional fee agreements (CFA), after the event premiums and success fees will no longer be recoverable in insolvency cases.
The legislative change is set to have the biggest impact on lower-value insolvency cases (damages less than £500,000 and legal costs lower than £200,000).
Rise in FRC investigations
In Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and another, the Privy Council recently held that anagreement to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court can arise through an implied term but there must be actual agreement (or consent). However, simply agreeing that an agreement should be governed by foreign law did not amount to agreement to the corresponding jurisdiction.