In Sea Emerald SA v Prominvestbank - Joint Stockpoint Commercial Industrial & Investment Bank - Lawtel 19.8.08 the Commercial Court gave a reminder of the importance of ensuring that the person signing a guarantee upon which you may seek to rely has authority to do so.

In Bridge Trustees Limited v Noel Penny, Judge Purle QC, sitting as an additional Judge of the High Court, held that the Court could use its inherent jurisdiction to permit an independent trustee to distribute surplus in a scheme that was winding-up. Under the Pensions Act 1995, an independent trustee is appointed to exercise powers otherwise conferred on the employer where an insolvency practitioner begins to act in relation to a company.

One of the significant changes to distributions in insolvency made by the Enterprise Act 2002 was the abolition of the preferential status of debts owed to the Crown and the introduction of a provision for the creation of a ‘ring-fenced fund’ (also known as the “prescribed part”, an amount currently capped at £600,000) from the proceeds of floating charges created after 15 September 2003 to be applied in distribution to unsecured creditors.

Philip Bell v Philip Long, Andrew Thomson, PKF and Weatherall Green & Smith (North) Limited [2008] EWHC 1273 (Ch)

Background

The receiver's duty to exercise care in disposing of the company's assets and to ensure he obtains the best price reasonably obtainable at the time of sale was considered recently in the English case of Bell v Long & Others.

Gleave and others v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund [2008] EWHC 1099 (Ch)

The High Court ruled that calculations of employer debt by scheme actuaries cannot be challenged by insolvency practitioners unless there is evidence of fraud or error.

[2008] EWHC 1099 (Ch)

The High Court has ruled that calculations of employer debt by scheme actuaries cannot be challenged by insolvency practitioners unless there is evidence of fraud or error.

The retail sector and its suppliers operate at the sharp end of the economy and feel the impact of tighter consumer spending with more immediacy than most other sectors.

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.

The case of Law Society v Dixit Shah (2007) EWHC 2841 (Ch) arose from the intervention of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors into an association of firms owned by Dixit Shah which traded under "the BJ Brandon Group" name. The Law Society alleged that the OSS discovered that around £12.5 million of client money had been misappropriated by Mr Shah.

In Lexi Holdings plc v Luqman and others – Butterworths Law Direct 17.8.07 the claimant company (the company), by its joint administrators, commenced proceedings against the first Defendant and his family, including the fifth Defendant. The company successfully applied without notice for freezing orders against the fifth Defendant.