The Court has heard another case dealing with a defective appointment of administrators under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)¹. Following hot on the tail of a recent series of conflicting cases relating to defective appointments, the Court has held that:

In BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail UK 2007 - 3BL PLC & Ors, the English Court of Appeal has decided that the mere fact that a company’s aggregate liabilities exceed its assets may not render the company to be deemed unable to pay its debts under section 123(2) of the UK Insolvency Act 1986 (commonly referred to as the “balance sheet test”). The test is whether a company has reached a point of no return such that its state of affairs is not or is unlikely to continue having regard to its contingent and future liabilities.

Arbitration proceedings in England are creatures of contract, arising out of the agreement between the parties to refer their disputes to arbitration. However, except in limited circumstances, when one of the parties to an arbitration agreement becomes insolvent, England’s statutory insolvency regime takes precedence over the rules of the arbitration.

The Insolvency Regime in England and Wales

In a recent case1 the High Court held that the purported out of court appointment of administrators over a Guernsey registered limited partnership was void because the appointor used the incorrect form when giving notice of its intention to appoint.

Background

Nearly three years after the High Court decision on the case of BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail UK 2007 – 3BL PLC and others was handed down, the case has run its course in the Supreme Court. The case, which considers the correct interpretation of the balance-sheet insolvency test in section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986, is of importance to insolvency practitioners, financial institutions, legal advisers, company directors and companies.  

Court of Appeal decision  

There has been great discussion over the course of INSOL on the various restructuring and insolvency reforms being considered or implemented globally. In the break out session ‘The good, the bad and the ugly: national and regional law reforms’, panellists drilled down into the detail of some of these reforms. The panel considered reforms in the EU (Prof. Christoph Paulus, Hamboldt-Universitat zu Berlin), the UK (Mark Craggs, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP), Singapore (Sushil Nair, Drew & Napier LLC), and the US (Donald S.

The Supreme Court has delivered a judgment providing welcome clarification on the construction and effect of section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the "balance-sheet" insolvency test) and its interaction with section 123(1)(e) of the Act (the "cash flow" insolvency test).

On 16 September 2010 the UK Treasury published a consultation paper seeking views on its proposals for a new Special Administration Regime (SAR) for investment firms. The Consultation included draft regulations that will implement the SAR (the Draft Regulations).

The Consultation was prompted by the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2008 which posed (and continues to pose) serious challenges for insolvency regimes around the world.

In the current economic climate, LLPs and their members are being forced to grapple with insolvency legislation. Applying the provisions of the corporate insolvency regime established by the Insolvency Act 1986 to LLPs is not straightforward. One of the issues is whether an individual member can apply to wind up an LLP.

Following the rejection of Stylo's proposed CVA earlier this year and the successful "unfair prejudice" challenge of Powerhouse's CVA in 2007, the recently approved CVA proposal put forward by JJB Sports, widely described by commentators as "ground-breaking", has generated significant interest in the CVA process and the use of a CVA to effect a solvent restructuring of a listed company without resorting to administration and a suspension of trading in its shares.