Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc v Zhunus [2016] EWCA Civ 1036 – Court of Appeal
A group of companies brought proceedings against their former chairman (“Mr Zhunus”), CEO (Mr Arip”) and former director (“Mr Dikhanbayeva”) for misappropriation of their assets.
In Akers (and others) v. Samba Financial Group [2017] UKSC 6, the UK Supreme Court has confirmed the limited nature of British insolvency officer-holders’ ability to void dispositions of a company’s assets held on trust. The Supreme Court also highlighted the potential dangers inherent in holding on trust assets located in jurisdictions which do not recognise common law trusts.
HENRY GEORGE DICKINSON (Claimant) v (1) NAL REALISATIONS (STAFFORDSHIRE) LTD (2) KEVIN JOHN HELLARD & GERALD KRASNER (JOINT LIQUIDATORS OF THE FIRST DEFENDANT) (Defendants) & JUDITH YAP DICKINSON (Third Party) & ROBERT WILLIAMSON (Fourth Party) [2017] EWHC 28 (Ch)
Norton Aluminium Limited ("the Company") went into administration in August 2012 when it received a draft judgment in favour of local residents in a claim for nuisance, which resulted in substantial damages being award and likely legal costs.
A Trustee in Bankruptcy is granted a wide statutory power under section 366 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”) to ask the Court, at any time after the Bankruptcy Order has been made, to privately examine any person believed to be in possession of the Bankrupt’s “property” or of information relating to his affairs, to assist with his or her statutory investigations.
There have been a number of decisions over the past decade concerning the interpretation of section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1989 (“IA 1986”) together with section 11 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (“WRPA”) in respect of whether a trustee in bankruptcy has the ability to compel a bankrupt to draw down payments from his personal pensions where he was eligible to make such an election but had not done so.
The legal position
Parties in the construction sector seeking to enforce an adjudicator’s decision against a
company with the benefit of a statutory moratorium were given fresh guidance in the recent case of South Coast Construction Ltd v Iverson Road Ltd [2017] EWHC 61.
Facts
In September 2013 Iverson Road Ltd (“Iverson”) engaged South Coast Construction Ltd (“SCC”) to complete various building works in London. In June 2016 SCC halted the work for non-payment of sums due by Iverson.
Summary
The insolvency legislation contains an unusual provision pursuant to section 375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 enabling the court to review its own decision. The issue in this case was whether the High Court could review its own decision where that decision was an appeal of a bankruptcy order made by a District Judge in the County Court.
The Facts
In two months' time the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 will come into force (with effect from 6 April 2017). This date has been long in the making the first draft of the new rules was published in September 2013.
The new rules are not intended to change the law. Their main aim is to consolidate provisions in order to reduce repetition, ensure that there is a more logical structure and modernise and simplify the language (including gender neutral drafting).
This briefing highlights a few of the key changes.
An employment tribunal has recently confirmed that employees who have been unfairly dismissed from an insolvent employer can bring an action against a connected successor company.
The tribunal held that there was a ‘commonality of ownership’ between the original and successor companies and that it was correct as a matter of public policy that employees should be able to sue the newco born from the ashes of the insolvent company.