The English High Court has, in one of the few successful cases on wrongful trading, clarified when directors ought to know that there is no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation and where the burden of proof lies in such cases.

Background

Re Trident Fashions PLC: Exeter City Council v Bairstow [2007] EWHC 400 (Ch)

In March 2007 the High Court ruled that that non-domestic rates are payable as an expense of the administration as a “necessary disbursement” under Rule 2.67(1)(f) Insolvency Rules 1986 (IR), in priority to payment of the administrator’s remuneration.

The English High Court has again considered whether by itself the choice of English law and court jurisdiction in legal documentation establishes a “sufficient connection” with England to enable a foreign company to avail itself of an English scheme of arrangement.

Background

Re Powerhouse Limited: Prudential Assurance Company Limited v PRG Powerhouse Limited [2007] EWHC 1002 Ch Guarantees are widely used in commercial transactions to provide assurance to creditors that debts or other obligations owed to them are discharged fully in the event the principal debtor fails to perform. This assurance was shaken by the steps taken in early 2006 by PRG Powerhouse Limited (Powerhouse) to enter into a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) that contained proposals to release certain parent company guarantees given to landlords of premises being vacated by Powerhouse.

Dealing with subject access requests (“SAR”s) under the Data Protection Act 1998 is becoming a regular occurrence for many organisations, particularly banks and their advisors.  Processing such requests can take up significant manpower and the costs can be substantial.  Whilst designed to allow individuals to access personal data, determine its source, why it is held and who it is shared with, in reality SARs are frequently being used as a fishing exercise for prospective litigation and complaints against institutions such as banks.  The recent case of 

In a judgment given on 25 January, the European Court of Justice has ruled in case C278-05 - Robins and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2007) that the UK Government failed adequately to implement a European Insolvency Directive dating back to the 1980’s, which was designed to safeguard pension scheme members’ benefits in the event that their employers became insolvent. However, the ECJ also went on to rule that the United Kingdom Government need not necessarily fund the lost pension rights in full or in part.

Summary

On 12 May 2015, the English High Court provided guidance on the interpretation of the Loss provision under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement in its judgment in Fondazione Enasarco v Lehman Brothers Finance S.A. and another [2014] EWHC 34 (Ch). The judgment will be of interest to participants in the derivatives markets as it provides:

A recent English High Court decision has further clarified the position on what amounts to an “abuse of process” when it comes to determining the motive behind the presentation of a winding up petition by a creditor. The High Court has ruled that only where a petition is issued for a purpose other than to ensure the equitable winding-up of a debtor company can it be considered an “abuse of process”, and goes on to outline what may constitute such an abuse.

The recent English High Court decision in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch)has conflicted with the earlier decision in Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWCA Civ. 799 and leaves the law unclear as to whether a debtor’s pension forms part of their bankruptcy estate.

A trustee in bankruptcy’s entitlement to seek an income payments order (“IPO”) in respect of a bankrupt’s income is governed by section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”). Under section 310(7) of the IA the income of a bankrupt:

An administrators’ appointment automatically ends after one year, unless steps are taken to extend it. The Enterprise Act introduced a new streamlined process for moving quickly and easily from administration to creditors’ voluntary liquidation, just by filing a notice at Companies House under para 83(3) Sch B1 of the Insolvency Act (IA)1986. Problems have arisen where that notice has been filed very late in the day and not received before the administrators’ term of office automatically ends.