The actuary is not required to consider the security of benefits where a bulk transfer without member consents is proposed, the Court has decided.

A transfer without consent cannot be made unless the actuary certifies that, in their opinion, the past service rights each member will be credited with in the receiving scheme will be "broadly no less favourable" than their rights in the transferring scheme.

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

The Key Provisions

After much delay, the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “Act”) will come into force on 1 August 2016. The essential purpose of the act is to aid claimants in procuring recoveries from the insurers of insolvent defendants.The Key Provisions

This will be of particular use to businesses that frequently find themselves in litigation with financially weak defendants. However, insolvency practitioners should also take note of the Act as it places new obligations on them.

The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the 2010 Act) will finally come into force from 1 August 2016.

The Act improves the rights of claimants who have a claim against an insolvent company or individual to directly claim against the insolvent party’s insurer.

In particular, the 2010 Act brings about the following important changes:

Although the EU Insolvency Regulation and the UNCITRAL Model Law have been with us for some time, decisions involving the court’s recognition of foreign proceedings continue to evolve and will – of necessity – turn on the specific facts of every case. We investigate two recent decisions which came up with very different results.

The background – Re OGX Petroloeo E Gas S.A. [2016] EWHC 25

The past few months have seen some interesting developments in legislative and regulatory requirements in the restructuring and insolvency world. We explore a number of them in this article.

SBEEA – reports on director conduct from 6 April

The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (Commencement No 4), Transitional and Savings Provisions Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/321) were made on 9 March 2016.

Before I hazard any kind of answer to the above, let me first declare my interest in the #Brexit / #Bremain debate, from the perspective of an insolvency lawyer.

So-called “Creditor Portals”, and other similarly titled electronic platforms by which insolvency practitioners typically circulate any meaningful information to creditors about insolvent estates, have been a bugbear of mine ever since they were first used a little while ago. Don’t get me wrong; I absolutely applaud the attempt which they represent to minimise the amount of unnecessary paperwork circulating around the country and the savings of cost which they bring to the administration of insolvent estates where the cost of copying and posting alone would be absolutely frightening today.

The received wisdom is that if, as a debtor, you are considering equitable set-off arguments, you are clutching at straws. A recent case shows a rare example of when such rights can successfully be used however. This article explores the issues further.

The background