In an important judgment, the High Court has tackled the question of whether an impecunious claimant can defeat a defendant’s application for security for costs on the basis that it has ATE insurance in place.
Introduction
We recently commented on a Scottish case involving dissolution, disclaimer and restoration (read our Law-Now here). There has now been an English case raising the same issues which on the face of it analyses the same provisions of the Companies Act 2006 (UK wide legislation) in a different way to achieve the same result.
The approach of the courts
After a stream of successes for lenders in valuation claims against valuers in recent times, the recent success for a valuer in an application for summary judgment in the case of Tiuta International Ltd (in liquidation) v De Villiers Chartered Surveyors Ltd offers some comfort to valuers. It demonstrates the courts’ unwillingness to follow creative attempts by lenders to establish a cause of action by disregarding the established legal principles in respect of causation in valuation claims.
The Court of Appeal gave judgment today (15 November 2013) in favour of licensed insolvency practitioner Andrew Hosking (D), unanimously upholding a strike out judgment of Peter Smith J made on 22 February 2013.
Stephen Hunt, liquidator of Ovenden Colbert Printers Limited (“OCP”), had sued D and 8 other defendants. His claim against D was brought pursuant to sections 238 and 241 Insolvency Act 1986. He alleged that D had received or benefited from payments made by OCP which constituted transactions at an undervalue.
On 18 January 2013 the Law of Ukraine on Introducing Changes to the Law on Restoring Debtor Solvency or Declaring Bankruptcy (the “New Bankruptcy Law”) became effective. The new Bankruptcy Law introduces a number of important changes to the bankruptcy procedure in Ukraine.
On 22 September 2011, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted the Law of Ukraine No. 3795-VI “On Amendments to Several Legislative Acts of Ukraine regarding the Regulation of Legal Relations between Creditors and Receivers of Financial Services” (the “Law”). The Law, among other changes, introduced amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On Restoring Debtor’s Solvency or Recognising it Bankrupt”, No. 2343-XII, dated 14 May 1992, as amended (the “Bankruptcy Law”).
On 26 August the UK Government announced its intention to introduce radical reforms to insolvency law in the catchily named consultation paper "Insolvency and Corporate Governance – Government Response". Despite the 82 pages, the government kept their cards relatively close to their chest choosing not to reveal their big plans but with suggestions about the reforms ahead to "enable more companies not only to survive, but to thrive".
David Pomeroy, partner and head of the restructuring and insolvency team at Bristol law firm Ashfords, shares his thoughts on how the city's high streets will need to evolve in order to survive
Every week we see a report of another major high street retailer on the brink. Mothercare is the latest to announce restructure plans and RBS has announced the closure of many of its high street branches, including Clifton.
They follow hot on the heels of brand names such as Jamie’s Italian, Maplin, Toys R Us, Byron, Prezzo and New Look closing or scaling back.
The High Court held that "final determination" signifies the very last stage of any proceedings, without the chance to appeal. Sberbank were therefore still bound by their undertaking to take no further steps in an arbitration against the Company.
The Insolvency Service has announced that the UK government is planning to conduct an assessment of the impact of the voluntary industry measures introduced in November 2015 to improve the transparency of connected party pre-pack sales in Administration.
The 2014 Graham Review found that pre-pack sales were a useful business rescue tool but noted that there was evidence of less successful outcomes where the pre-pack sale was to a connected party.