The Appeals process is governed by Rules 12.59; 12.61 and Schedule 11. The old corresponding provisions were Rules 7.47 and 7.49A.

The major change to the provisions is that there is now clarification on appealing decisions made by District Judges. The new rules provide that these appeals will now lie either to a High Court Judge in a District Registry or a Registrar in Bankruptcy at the High Court. This was previously the case, but was only inserted into the old rules by way of an Amendment - they now come fully under the scope of the rules.

This note addresses the changes to CVA's in the Rules.

Consolidation of the Rules

Rule 2.1 to 2.45 are applicable to CVA's (they were formerly found between 1.1 to 1.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 ("IR86")). There has been an element of consolidation of IR86 applicable to CVA's and relating to:

ECJ decides that rights in rem should be interpreted in accordance with German law, despite insolvency proceedings having been opened in France

In the recent case of SCI Senior Home (in Administration) v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down judgment on the question of whether a right in rem created under national law should be considered a "right in rem" for the purposes of Article 5 of the Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the "Insolvency Regulation").

The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas made an ancillary winding up order against Caledonian Bank Limited, a company registered in the Cayman Islands, under the Companies Winding-Up Amendment Act 2011.

When a company is facing financial difficulties, the Directors of that company should be aware to the procedures that must be followed in relation to redundancies in order to avoid prosecution.

The government's response to the recent Insolvency and Corporate Governance Consultation has increased the emphasis on flexibility and the restructure and rescue of businesses. However, along with the recent October Budget, there are proposed reforms which are set to increase the focus and accountability for directors of companies.

Preliminary Moratorium

One of the key new proposals to be introduced with the aim of rescuing companies is a "Preliminary Moratorium".

This recent Court of Appeal decision has provided clarity on the justification for the rules against bringing claims for reflective loss and confirmed that both unsecured creditors and shareholders are similarly barred from bringing such claims.

Background

The Facts

This was an appeal of a decision of Chief Registrar Baister.

Dean and Richard Robbins were directors of a company which entered Creditors Voluntary Liquidation in February 2011. Dean Robbins was the sole shareholder. It appears that the Company had somewhat basic accounting practices and did not keep detailed books and records. It transpired that, prior to entering Liquidation, the Company had paid substantial sums to the Directors in various instalments, which the Liquidators sought to recover under three separate claims.

The saga of Carillion's collapse continued this month, as it transpired that accountancy giants EY had prepared plans to restructure the troubled construction firm as early as mid-December 2017.

The High Court held that a moratorium in relation to restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan could not be extended in breach of the Gibbs rule, allowing two significant creditors to proceed with their claims in the English Courts.