The Joint Administrators (the “Administrators”) of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) have issued a notice, dated December 4, 2009 (the “Notice”), pursuant to Rule 2.95(1) of the U.K. Insolvency Rules 1986, announcing their intent to make a distribution (by payment of an interim dividend) to preferential creditors (if any) and unsecured, non-preferential creditors of LBIE. The Notice was authorized on December 2, 2009, by an order of the High Court of Justice (Companies Court) in London (the “U.K. Court Order”).

Some of the customers of Farepak, the failed Christmas hamper company that went into liquidation with BDO Stoy Hayward some three years ago, will apparently soon receive their first dividend cheques out of the insolvency. Perhaps even in time for Christmas 2009!

The draft Legislative Reform (Insolvency) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2009 has now been published detailing the proposed changes to the Insolvency Act 1986. The aim of the changes is to reduce costs and the administrative burden on users of the legislation and subsequently benefi t the creditors of insolvent companies and individuals through more fl exible procedures and increased dividends.  

For debtors with limited liabilities, little surplus income and minimal gross assets, the new Debt Relief Order (DRO) is a further tool to consider in managing their debts. DROs, which came into force on 6 April 2009, are aimed at those who find they are unable to pay off their debts within a reasonable time but for whom other forms of debt relief, such as bankruptcy or Individual Voluntary Arrangements, are unavailable, or perhaps unaffordable.

What are the criteria for a DRO?

A DRO can be applied for where the debtor:

Secured creditors with an unsecured shortfall cannot claim a share of the prescribed part of the floating charge realisations set aside for unsecured creditors under Section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986. This applies whether the secured creditor is the holder of a fixed or a floating charge (or both).

In a judgment useful to insolvency practitioners, a court has recently confirmed that liquidators are not personally liable for payment of dividends. In Lomax Leisure v Miller and Bramston [2007] EWHC 2508 (Ch) Miller and Bramston faced personal claims on dividend cheques they had cancelled, after receiving a pending application from a creditor whose claim they had rejected. Miller and Bramstom were later replaced by a new liquidator who brought claims in the name of the company and various creditors.

Summary

The Pensions Regulator intends to issue its first financial support direction (FSD) against the Bermudan-based Sea Containers Limited (SCL), which is currently restructuring under the US Chapter 11 bankruptcy process.

In a recent decision issued by Lord Drummond Young, one of the Scottish insolvency judges in the Court of Session, useful guidance has been issued which will be of interest to practitioners having to deal with the, not uncommon, situation of a retiring practitioner and replacement with a current partner in the same firm.

The Powerhouse CVA, which sought to strip away guarantees provided by the parent company to landlords of Powerhouse, has been struck down as unfairly prejudicial by the High Court. However, certain aspects of the judgement remain unclear and could be subject to future appeal…

BACKGROUND TO THE POWERHOUSE CVA

Powerhouse (an electrical retailer) proposed a CVA on 1 February 2006 with the intention of closing 35 of its stores (the Closed Premises).

In a recent case, BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others, the High Court was asked to consider the circumstances in which the directors of a company are required to consider the interests of creditors and the extent to which the payment of a dividend by a company can be susceptible to challenge under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).