Treasury is consulting on how to improve protection and payment of benefits for policyholders of insurers who get into financial difficulty. Historically, few insurers have been put into administration or liquidation, and none have been so seriously affected in the recent crisis. So Treasury thinks it is time to review the regime and suggests changes that would:

Treasury has published two orders made under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Banking Act 2009. The orders are:  

Meem SL Limited was an unsuccessful start-up company in the United Kingdom.  The board resolved to put the company into administration and sell the business to a company owned by the directors.

In Lafferty v Official Assignee Gordon J considered Mr Lafferty's appeal of two decisions of the Official Assignee to refuse Mr Lafferty's applications under section 62(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 to enter or carry on business while bankrupt.

Gordon J dismissed the appeal on the basis that Mr Lafferty could not show that the Official Assignee had made an error of law, failed to take into account relevant considerations or was manifestly wrong in exercising its discretion under regulation 34 of the Insolvency Regulations 1970.

In a second application heard on the same day, Hildyard J considered an application by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Limited (LBEL) for directions that would enable a surplus to be distributed to the sole member of LBEL while LBEL remained in administration. The proposed scheme had material benefits for both shareholders and creditors. The administrators acknowledged that the orders sought were an indirect means of circumventing the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK), which does not expressly provide for directors to make distributions during an administration.

In a comprehensive judgment arising out of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the UK Supreme Court recently determined the ranking of creditors.

Principally, the Court held that Lehman Brothers International (Europe)'s subordinated debt holders were "at the bottom of the waterfall", behind statutory interest and non-provable debt claimants.

The English case Webster & Anor v Mackay is an appeal against a refusal to annul or rescind bankruptcy orders. The appeal was based on the assertion that the petition debt was not for a liquidated sum as required under section 267(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The debtors were obliged, as evidenced by a promissory note, to repay a loan of £200,000 to Mr Mackay. However, Mr Mackay also alleged a repudiatory breach of the loan agreement due to the failure of the debtors to provide accounts. 

In our December 2010 and April 2011 insolvency updates, we reported on the UK High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail. The issue before both Courts was whether Eurosail was insolvent by virtue of being unable to pay its debts under the balance sheet limb of the solvency test in section 123 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision that Eurosail was solvent, noting that it had not reached the "point of no return".

The recent English decision in the Australian liquidation, New Cap Reinsurance Corpn Ltd (in liquidation) and another v Grant and others (available here), has further opened up the possibility for New Zealand insolvency proceedings to be recognised and enforced in the United Kingdom. 

The administrators of St George’s Property Services (London) Ltd appealed from a decision granting the application of the 2 shareholders and directors of the company to remove the administrators and to appoint replacement insolvency practitioners who were willing to make an application under s 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK) in respect of an exorbitant credit transaction to which the company was a party.