Yesterday the Government confirmed that the restrictions on the presentation of winding up petitions would be lifted on 30 September 2021, as planned.

However, designed to assist small companies in their recovery from the pandemic, the new regulations coming into force on 29 September 2021 have been drafted with the aim of protecting businesses from creditors demanding repayment of relatively small debts. The key difference is the temporary raising of the threshold for a winding up petition to £10,000, a drastic increase from £750.

In 2014, Accelerated Payment Notices (“APNs”) were introduced by the Government under the Finance Act 2014, allowing HMRC to request upfront payments on account of disputed tax and/or National Insurance contributions relating to certain tax avoidance schemes.

The worldwide Covid 19 pandemic has touched and affected us all in many different ways. In this blog I will look at how those of us who work in debt recovery need to take on board the impact the pandemic has had on mental health and factor that into their strategies. Mental health cannot be ignored as my partner, Cory Bebb, wrote in his recent blog

Amplifying JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Ltd v Davis Haulage Ltd [2018] EWCA CIV 276 the court has again considered repeated Notices of Intention to Appoint (NOITA) and the effect on the interim moratorium.

Background

This case involved the Company filing 4 successive NOITAs although only two of them were the subject of these proceedings (NOITA 1 and NOITA 2).

The Company owned a Property which was subject to a legal mortgage and QFC. The secured loan was in default and the Company was seeking to delay enforcement whilst it refinanced.

The proposed new regulations to safeguard the proprietary of pre-packs have caused alarm in the profession, one of the areas of concern being the requirement that the Evaluator central to the process requires no professional qualifications but thankfully are qualified if they think they are (yes, you did detect some sarcasm).

The Regulations will mean that an administrator cannot execute a pre-pack if the following applies:

Background

The Debtor was 82 years of age, and subject to a bankruptcy petition in the County Court in the sum of £62,000 which was heard on 19 December 2019.

PJSC Uralkali v Rowley & Anor [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) is about the sale of the Force India F1 racing team, owned and operated by Force India Formula One Team Limited (the “Company”).

The Force India F1 team was more successful on the track than it was financially and by the summer of 2018, the Company was in a precarious financial position. The Company went into administration and appointed joint administrators on 27 July 2018 (the “Joint Administrators”).

The issue in this case concerned the failure of a holder of a Qualifying Floating Charge (QFC) to give notice to a prior QFC holder before appointing administrators, therefore potentially calling into question the validity of the administration.

The facts of this case were somewhat unusual although it serves as a reminder of the principles involved in the trading of a business by a trustee in bankruptcy.

Background

JMW Solicitors have recently obtained an Order made pursuant to Section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”), which includes a term that allows the office-holder to recover possession of a residential property, without the need for separate possession proceedings being issued pursuant to Part 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”), which sets out the usual Court procedure for obtaining an order for possession of land.