This article was first published in The Gazette, and the original article can be found online here.

The implementation of the Insolvency Rules 2016 has introduced a number of changes to the procedures in insolvency regimes.

Marex Financial Limited v. Carlos Sevilleja Garcia [2017] EWHC 918 (Comm)

This recent decision on a jurisdictional challenge has provided greater clarity and potentially created a tortious cause of action where a debtor dissipates assets prior to judgment and subsequent freezing order.

Background

Part 15 Insolvency Rules 2016 consolidates the rules in relation to notices, voting rights, exclusions and appeals introducing some much needed consistency between the different insolvency processes. Most of the changes are minor, but the new Rules also introduce two radical changes:

1. The abolition of physical meetings as the default decision making mechanism in all insolvency processes, and

2. New decision making procedures (including deemed consent which will be covered in next week's update.)

An update on the changes to CVA's brought about by the introduction of the New Rules.

1. CONSOLIDATION OF THE RULES

1.1. The New Rules applicable to CVA's are found at rules 2.1 to 2.45 of the New Rules, (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:

The BVI High Court granted Norwich Pharmacal relief against a registered agent for a judgment debtor who was subject to an interim freezing order.

The judgment creditor had obtained an interim freezing order against the judgment debtor, and was seeking general information as to the assets of the judgment debtor, following a pattern of concealment of assets to frustrate enforcement of a foreign judgment. The judgment debtor had failed to comply with an overseas freezing order and had been held in contempt of court for failing to disclose assets.

On 23 June 2016, a 52% majority of the British people voted in favour of leaving the European Union. It is unclear the extent of the effect this will have, but restructuring and insolvency professionals face an uncertain future if the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings 2000 and the Recast Insolvency Regulation, which replaces it in 2017, cease to apply to cross border restructurings in the UK.

This article was first published by The Gazette and the full article can be found online here. 

The Court applied sections 423-425 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA) to the transfer of an interest in a Ukrainian television station. When analysing the Defendant's actions the Court considered the transaction was made for a prohibited purpose.

Background

The Judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port And Terminal Private Ltd (formerly known as Fourcee Port and Terminal Private Ltd) [2018] EWCA Civ 1660, [2018] All ER (D) 101 (Jul) on 13 July 2018 provided important clarification as to the service of claims under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") out of the jurisdiction.

The Facts

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to order a Latvian bank to disclose information regarding a bankrupt's dealings. The Joint Trustees of the Bankrupt's estate had demonstrated that their request was reasonable and was required to identify further assets that the Bankrupt might hold.

This decision is the latest that has been made in relation to the bankruptcy of Mr Shlosberg, a Russian businessman domiciled in London. Mr Shlosberg was made bankrupt in January 2015 on a judgment debt of US$195 million plus interest.