The summer months are upon us, and developments in insolvency law and practice continue apace. Since our Spring issue the courts have pronounced in a number of interesting cases. At the time of writing, the World Cup is underway – it would perhaps be remiss not to have some football flavour in this article, and so some observations on the plight of Portsmouth FC are appropriate (though saved till the end).

Successive notices of intention to appoint administrators: more than one moratorium?

THE PERENNIAL PROBLEM OF UNPAID DEBTS – YOUR RECOVERY OPTIONS

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.

On 1 April 2008 The Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008 (Regulations) came into force. The Regulations extend the exclusion from the obligation to pay rates in respect of unoccupied non-domestic rates to those premises where the owner (or lessee, being a person entitled to possession) is a company in administration pursuant to Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 or is subject to an administration order under the former administration provisions.

At the end of 2006 a decision of the Court of Appeal in Churchill v First Independent Factors and Finance Limited (Churchill) caused consternation among those involved in the management of insolvent companies who are also involved in the management of the company that acquires the whole or a substantial part of the insolvent business.

Following on from our blog: Does e-filing give you a headache? Does the recent guidance issued by the Chancellor help ease the pain?

In the recent case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others [2016] EWHC 1686, the High Court has held for the first time that a dividend can be challenged as a transaction entered into at an undervalue within the meaning of section 423(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).

The Facts

The facts of the case are long and complex but for present purposes the pertinent facts are as follows.

Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (now Windward Prospects Limited) (“AWA”) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (“SSA”).

Following our 2016 article, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends are liable to challenge as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).

A new fee structure in respect of insolvency fees payable to the Insolvency Service came into force on 21 July 2016, pursuant to The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2016 (SI 2016/692) (the “Order”), which revokes The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2004 (SI 2004/593) and all ten subsequent amendment orders.

With the gradual opening of energy supply markets allowing new energy providers to challenge the established providers and bring increased competition to the market, the last two decades have seen an increase in smaller energy providers entering the market and sharing a growing customer base. But what happens to the customers when an energy provider becomes insolvent?