Summary

On 14 October 2015, the Court of Appeal overturned a decision that two payments had been made in breach of a freezing order. The order prohibited the respondent to the freezing injunction application from dealing with or disposing of any of its assets other than in the ordinary and proper course of business. The Court held that the judge at first instance had taken too narrow a view in construing this exception and that, in light of the specific facts of the case, the freezing order had not been breached.

On 29 November 2011, the Court of Appeal ruled for the dismissal of appeals lodged by Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited (DSWC) and Bernard Freeman and Michael Sullivan, trading as Satellite Services (SS), in respect of winding-up orders previously secured by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) against these companies.

In a recent case, the court held that a party to a settlement agreement (in this case a broker) cannot restrict the indemnity it is providing so that the indemnity is not payable if the insured goes into administration, or liquidation, or undergoes some other insolvency event. The decision is important on its own facts. But it does also raise questions about the legitimacy of other clauses in insurance contracts which depend on whether or not the insured or reinsured has entered into any kind of insolvency event.

A Court of Appeal decision last week has broadly upheld previous TCC guidance as to the ability of companies in liquidation or those subject to CVAs to commence and enforce adjudication proceedings against their creditors. Although theoretically possible, adjudication proceedings commenced by companies in liquidation are now liable to be restrained by a court injunction.  Adjudications by companies subject to a CVA are more likely to be appropriate and, depending on the circumstances, may be enforced without a stay of execution.

Insolvency set-off: a recap

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

In an urgent application, the Court of Appeal held that a CVA should be precluded from becoming effective where an unanticipated claim of €126.7m was submitted after the CVA was approved but before the statutory bar on new claims had lapsed.

The Facts

This case is the first to really consider the practical impact of the recent Court of Appeal decision in Shlosberg v Avonwick [2016] EWCA Civ 1138, in which it was decided that legal professional privilege does not vest in a Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The Facts

The Facts

Budniok v Adjudicator, Insolvency Service [2017] EWHC 368 (Ch)

Chief Registrar Baister overturned the Adjudicator's decision in refusing to grant a Bankruptcy Order where the Debtor's 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.