Treasury has made a new set of Financial Markets and Insolvency Regulations that change the insolvency regime that applies to RIEs and RCHs. The Regulations amend several existing pieces of legislation including Part VII Companies Act 1989 and the 1991 Regulations. The changes include:  

The 22nd of April 2009 brings in significant changes to rules relating to arrestment and actions of furthcoming. The Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Act 2007 (Commencement No. 4, Savings and Transitionals) Order 2009 brings into force Section 10 of the 2007 Act which inserts Part 3A into the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. The provisions coming into effect include:

In DHL GBS (UK) Ltd v Fallimento Finmatica Spa – Butterworths Law Direct 20.2.09 the Commercial Court gave its first decision on the issues dealt with by the ECJ in the Front Comor.

Where a debtor's assets exceed his liabilities, the onus is on the debtor to prove he can not pay his debts if a creditor seeks to annul the bankruptcy order.

In Paulin v Paulin and another, the defendant petitioned for his own bankruptcy claiming he was unable to pay his debts. The claimant applied for the order to be annulled claiming the defendant could afford to pay his debts and was deliberately attempting to defeat her claims in the matrimonial proceedings.

Where the entirety of a debt is not included in an agreement to settle, a creditor can continue to prove in a bankruptcy for the balance.

In April 2008 the Bankruptcy & Diligence (Scotland) Act 2007 ("the Act") introduced a new regime for obtaining permission for (and recalling) diligence on the dependence of a court action (i.e. arrestment and inhibition). In terms of the Act, before granting (or recalling) warrant for diligence, the court must be satisfied that:

This recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is one of the first to examine how the insolvency provisions in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) should apply and, in particular, the circumstances in which employment liabilities passed under TUPE to the buyer of the assets of an insolvent company.

Facts

This case involved a "pre-pack" administration.

The absence of an intention to put assets out of the reach of creditors will thwart applications under the Insolvency Act to set declarations of trust or transfers aside.

An intervening bankruptcy will not defeat a charging order where the bankruptcy was entered into in an attempt to frustrate the charge.

The US Court has approved a bankruptcy settlement under which a US-listed parent company is liable for the buy-out deficits in its UK subsidiary's pension schemes. Key to the court's considerations was the issue of Financial Support Directions (FSDs) by the UK Pensions Regulator against the US parent company.

The court decided that: