The English Court has recently considered who can be recognised as “foreign representatives” under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) in the case of Re 19 Entertainment Limited, about a US company in Chapter 11. The Re 19 Entertainment judgment appears to be the first English case where directors of a company in Chapter 11 proceedings were recognised as “foreign representatives.”

On 21 July 2016, an increase in the fees for bankruptcy and company insolvency came into force.

The new fees will apply to any petition which is lodged with the Adjudicator or filed with the court on or after 21 July 2016. The new fee structure will also apply to any bankruptcy order or compulsory winding up order made on or after this date.

The changes to existing fees and deposits are as follows:

A new fee structure in respect of insolvency fees payable to the Insolvency Service came into force on 21 July 2016, pursuant to The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2016 (SI 2016/692) (the “Order”), which revokes The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2004 (SI 2004/593) and all ten subsequent amendment orders.

Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1001

Law firm Dechert LLP has been ordered to cease acting for the principal creditor of bankrupt Russian businessman, Mr Shlosberg, because it also acted for the trustees in bankruptcy, and accordingly had had access to documents subject to Mr Shlosberg's legal professional privilege.

Facts

Prior to 1930 if an insured person/company (insured) incurred a liability to a third party (TP) but then became bankrupt/passed into liquidation any monies paid out under the insurance policy was paid to the Trustee/Liquidator for the benefit of ALL creditors.

The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (1930 Act) transferred the insured’s rights against the insurer under certain circumstances to the TP who could pursue the insurer against the policy proceeds once the insured’s liability was established. So the policy proceeds may benefit the TP and not all creditors.

Key points

• There have been conflicting decisions on whether a person may be made the subject of any income payments order (IPO)
• This case suggests that the court will not make an IPO in respect of unelected pension entitlements

The facts

Facts

The husband and wife were directors and shareholders of a company (‘C’). The husband was adjudged bankrupt in June 2014; the petitioners were appointed as his trustees in bankruptcy. Among the assets vested in the trustees under s 306 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), was the husband’s shareholding in C. However, the trustees were not registered as members of C until March 2015.

Further to our updates in December and January, there has been a further development in relation to this case. The High Court heard the second adjourned hearing of the bankruptcy petition in relation to Glenn Maud.

FACTS:

InHinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH), Jason Freedman and Aziz Abdul successfully secured an Income Payments Order (“IPO”) on behalf of the Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The court also provided useful guidance on the correct position where a bankrupt has made an election to draw down from his private pension but not given specific instructions as to application of the funds.

LEGAL BACKGROUND:

The Facts

A owned two properties, one of which had been divided into two separately rateable properties for council tax purposes. R presented a bankruptcy petition against A based on a purported debt of £14,097.59 owed by A in respect of unpaid council tax for which it had obtained liability orders from the Magistrates Court.