The UK and the US have historically been perceived as leading jurisdictions in the development of restructuring and insolvency law – to the extent that dozens of local insolvency regimes around the world have been modelled on some combination of their processes. Both regimes are highly sophisticated, and feature well-developed legislation supported by decades of case law that offers both debtors and creditors alike a degree of certainty and predictability that is not always available in other jurisdictions.

The Facts

Following a bankruptcy petition on 23 January 2007, Mr Eaitisham Ahmed had entered an IVA which was approved as a result of votes of family members who claimed to be creditors. The IVA was challenged and a bankruptcy order was made on 21 April 2009. David Ingram and Michaela Hall were appointed as Joint Trustees on 14 April 2010, following a trustee in bankruptcy initially appointed on or around the time of the bankruptcy order.

Conflicts of interest on the part of Administrators and the Court’s powers to grant remedial relief by appointing so-called “conflicts” administrators have become real hot topics in insolvency litigation, in particular following the decisions this year in VE Vegas Investors IV LLC and Davey v Money.

The Company Voluntary Arrangement (‘CVA’) was introduced into English insolvency law by the Insolvency Act 1986 (the ‘IA 1986’), as a result of recommendations made in the Cork Report1 in 1982.

The High Court has given guidance on the principles that insolvency officeholders should apply when deciding whether or not to assign a claim in LF2 Ltd v Supperstone [2018] EWHC 1776

This guidance does not create a binding precedent but does set out a helpful framework within which insolvency officeholders can consider a proposed assignment of a cause of action.

Assignments of claims by insolvency officeholders

The Court of Appeal has today handed down judgment in the case of Orexim Trading Limited v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1660, raising important issues as to the service of claims under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 out of the jurisdiction.

In the recent decision of Orexim Trading Limited v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the Court does have power to permit service of a claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 outside England and Wales. However, in the circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal declined to exercise its discretion to grant permission to serve the claim form outside the jurisdiction. HFW acted for the successful First Respondent, Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited (MPT).

Background

2018 has been one tough year on the High Street...

Retail, as a sector, has long been under pressure from increased competition from online retailers, which has resulted in reduced footfall on the High Street, affecting many companies, including many well-known names.

Claims remain frequent in the construction industry, and so do insolvencies. In the wake of main contractor Carillion’s entry into liquidation, and rumours of forthcoming interest rate rises, it is worth looking at what effect different types of insolvency have on the ability to prosecute claims.

The Facts

Mr Reynard, a bankrupt, made an claim against his Trustee, Mr Fox. Mr Reynard acted in person at all times and issued proceedings at the county court money claims centre for breach of contract and negligence, asserting that his Trustee had failed to assess potential claims properly and had incorrectly valued the claims, and therefore had failed to take action.