The out of Court appointment processes are broadly similar to the processes under the Insolvency Rules 1986 with some minor amendments. The most significant change is the abolition of the prescribed forms for appointment documents.

Whatever type of appointment (out of Court by company/directors, out of Court by Qualifying Floating Charge Holder ("QFCH"), application to Court), the Consent to Act form and contents is dealt with by r3.2.

Appointment out of Court by directors/the Company

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.)

There are changes to the Act mainly designed to bring in the required changes following the abolition of physical meetings in the first instance.

Approval is now by a creditors decision making procedure namely -

1. Correspondence;
2. Electronic Voting; or
3. Virtual Meeting.

Contents of the Proposal

Any proposal must comply with the general principles set out in rule 8.2I IR2016 -

[Note: deemed consent cannot be used to decide on remuneration, or where the Act/Rules requires a decision by a decision procedure.]

The Deemed Consent procedure is set out in sections 246ZF (corporate insolvency) and 379ZB (personal insolvency) of the Insolvency Act 1986, as inserted by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, and rule 15.7 of the Insolvency Rules 2016.

The deemed consent procedure is that relevant creditors/contributories are given notice:

Rules 18.15 to 18.38 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 deals with remuneration principles, fixing of remuneration, challenges by creditors and applications to Court by officeholders in relation to their remuneration placing all the rules surrounding remuneration in one place as opposed to dotted around the various procedures in the old rules.

Principles

Rule 18.16 sets out the general principles as to how administrators, liquidators and trustees can be remunerated and is largely unchanged from the old rules.

This briefing note addresses the effect of the Insolvency Rules 2016 ("Rules") to the: (i) Electronic delivery of documents; and (ii) use of Websites to deliver documents.

Consolidation of the Rules

The Rules in relation to Electronic delivery of documents and use of websites have been applied as follows, namely:

Applications

Rule 12 sets out rules relating to applications, (excluding administration applications, winding up petitions and creditors' bankruptcy petitions) including:

Registrar Baister overturned the adjudicator's decision in refusing to grant a Bankruptcy Order where the debtors COMI was an issue.

Mr Budniok, a German citizen who had recently moved to London, applied online for a Bankruptcy Order in England. After several requests for further information, the adjudicator was not satisfied Mr Budniok's centre of main interests ("COMI") was in England and as such refused the application. Mr Budniok appealed.

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:

This article was first published in Building Magazine, Issue 10, 10 March 2017.

Does an adjudication enforcement trump an insolvency moratorium? A recent case in the TCC has provided clear guidance on the issue.