Preamble

Most if not all of our readers will be aware of a recent spate of decisions in which the English courts have been prepared to sanction schemes of arrangements (SofAs) for foreign entities having a “sufficient connection” with England and Wales. The latest decisions in Re Magyar Telecom B.V. (03/12/2013) show just how flexible the English courts can be in finding such a connection.

The background

This update focusses upon two recent High Court decisions dealing with (respectively) the ability of the court to retrospectively extend court-appointed receiverships, and the issue of whether COMI had shifted to England for a German national seeking bankruptcy here.

Extension of court-appointed receiverships

The case of Bank of Ireland v (1) Edeneast (2) Cosgrove and (3) Maguire (17/09/2013) concerned an application by the bank to retrospectively continue and extend the appointment of a courtappointed receiver.

This update focusses on a range of issues affecting IPs from the past two months, covering the consultation on fees announced in February, the HMRC announced changes to the VAT deregistration regime, when accountants may be required to produce documents under Sections 235 and 256 of the Insolvency Act, and a recent Court of Appeal decision on when a company may be considered to be insolvent for the purpose of Section 238 actions

Consultation on the regulation of Insolvency Practitioners and IPs’ fees

The Court of Appeal in Pillar Denton Ltd & Others v (1) Jervis (2) Maddison and (3) Game Retail Ltd ([2014] EWCA Civ 180) yesterday overruled previous High Court authority, deciding that rent should be treated as an expense of the administration based on actual usage and not on when the rent falls due. What does this mean for practitioners?

The background

Landlords will be relieved that the Court of Appeal has closed a legal loophole in a test case arising out of the administration of the Game group of Companies – Pillar Denton Ltd & 5 others v (1) Jervis (2) Maddison (3) Game Retail Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 180.

What happens to funds held in escrow when the paying entity goes into administration?

The background

Escrow mechanisms are familiar territory for most practitioners. The case of Bristol Alliance Nominee No. 1 Ltd and others v Neil Andrew Bennett and others [2013] EWCA Civ 1626 explores what happens when funds are held in escrow at a time when the paying entity goes into administration.

We take a look at the reforms to the EC Insolvency Regulation in light of the European Parliament’s 4 February vote on the committee of legal affairs’ report on the proposed reforms.

The background

Can a debtor be found to be balance sheet or cash flow insolvent even though its obligations are limited (in terms of creditor recourse) to the available assets? This was the question facing the High Court in Re ARM Asset Backed Securities SA [2013] EWCH 3351.

The background

The context - validity of appointment of administrators

The appointment of administrators under a charge prevents a company’s directors from exercising any management powers without the administrator’s consent.
However, the charge must be enforceable at the time of the administrators’ appointment. What happens if the directors dispute that the charge was enforceable? Are they prevented from controlling the company to reject the appointment.

The background

IPs are always on guard for potential conversion claims - but what happens when no title can be established? Euromex clarifies the whole mess.

The background