Section 236 Insolvency Act ("IA") 1986 enables the Court power to summon persons with information about the affairs of a company to appear before it and / or to produce documents. In our August bulletin we considered the decision of the English High Court in Re MF Global [2015] EWHC 2319 when it was held that s236 does not have extra-territorial effect. However, having looked at the issue again in Official Receiver v Norriss [2015] EWHC 2697, the High Court has departed from the position in Re MF Global.

The High Court held that a moratorium in relation to restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan could not be extended in breach of the Gibbs rule, allowing two significant creditors to proceed with their claims in the English Courts.

The English High Court has for the first time directly addressed the question of the extra-territorial application of s233 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Official Receiver as Liquidator of Sahaviriya Streel Industries UK Ltd sought an order to restore access to an IT system provided to the Company by its parent company in Thailand. In granting permission to the Official Receiver to serve the application out of the jurisdiction, the Court was persuaded by the reasoning in the recent cases of Jetivia and Re Paramount Airways which concerned other provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The Facts

The latest decision in the Shlosberg saga that has turned the issue of privilege and use of documents on its head - this time considering the practical implications of how office holders can use information they have obtained by compulsion for the purposes of their investigations.

The High Court considered whether it would be appropriate to approve a scheme of arrangement for a company incorporated in Luxembourg where the company's COMI had been moved to England and there had been a change in the governing law and jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts.

An application was made for recognition in Great Britain under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("CBIR") of new legislation in Croatia known as "Extraordinary Administration Proceeding".

In Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Ltd and others [2017] EWHC 2663 (Comm), the High Court held that a claim under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") where it was not brought by an insolvent company within the jursdiction did not fall within the jurisdictional gateways under paragraph 3.1 CPR PD 6B.

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 Claimant purchased various rights to action from the Liquidator of a Company. The Deed of Assignment included the right to bring a claim for "alleged illegal dividends and/or transactions at an undervalue" arising out of payments to the Defendant, a director/shareholder, had received. It is important to note that the Deed of Assignment did not grant the right to bring a claim for Preference.

The Facts

Following a statutory demand for unpaid council tax in the sum of £8,067, a bankruptcy petition was presented against Ms Harriet Lock. The council provided Ms Lock with evidence of the council tax liability orders confirming the debt. Ms Lock provided evidence in response, which explained that she was living in social housing and was financially dependent on her daughter. At a first hearing, the court adjourned and ordered that Ms Lock provide a skeleton argument to explain why a bankruptcy order should not be made.