Application for a freezing order in support of foreign proceedings/appointment of a receiver and a power of attorney

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2015/3383.html

The applicants (based in the UAE and Georgia) sought freezing orders against the respondents in support of proceedings taking place overseas. The respondents are LLPs registered in England and Wales and owned by a Georgian national.

The High Court has upheld the pari passu principle central to English insolvency legislation when applied to a deceased’s insolvent estate and interpreting legislation stated to be “modified accordingly”. This approach clarifies that foreign currency claims and claims for interest should be calculated for voting purposes as at the date of death, rather than the date an Insolvency Administration Order (IAO) is made. HFW acted for the respondent in this case.

Introduction

This month in Sharma v Top Brands Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1140 the Court of Appeal has again been asked to grapple with the question of when the illegality defence is available to defendants to actions brought by an insolvent company where the losses claimed are arguably tainted by the company's own fraudulent actions. In this instance the question for the court was whether the defence was available to a former liquidator of a company seeking to defend a claim brought against her for breach of duty under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Key Point

There is no assumption under English law that, where a company appeals against a winding-up order, it should give security for costs.

The Facts

Key Points

• Receivers only owe a duty of care to those parties who hold an interest in the equity of redemption.
• Upon the making of a bankruptcy order, the bankrupt ceases to participate in any such interest and the equity of redemption vests in the trustee in bankruptcy.

The Facts

Key Points

• An administrator may be able appeal an order restoring a company following dissolution
• The court has jurisdiction to backdate a winding up order made following restoration to the date of dissolution
• The court must exercise its discretion to do so with extreme caution

The Facts

Client Connection Limited (“Company”) was placed into administration and Ms Sharma (“A”) was appointed as administrator. Following a pre-pack sale of the business of the Company, A moved the Company to dissolution.

The recent case of Oraki v Bramston and Defty [2015] EWHC 2046 (Ch) concerned former bankrupts' claims of professional negligence against their former trustees in bankruptcy (“the Trustees”). In dismissing the claims, the High Court held that the Trustees did not owe a common law duty of care to the bankrupts.

Patrick Hill and Declan Finn of DAC Beachcroft LLP, who acted on behalf of the successful Trustees, discuss the case and consider its implications for trustees in bankruptcy.

Background

In Bellis v Challinor [2015] EWCA Civ 59 and Gore v Mishcon de Reya [2015] EWHC 164 (Ch) the question arose whether monies transferred to a solicitors’ client account were held on trust for the solicitors’ client or on a Quistclose trust for the transferor. Both decisions have provided clarity as to when a Quistclose trust will be found to exist and the nature of the construction exercise the court will undertake.

Section 236 Insolvency Act ("IA") 1986 enables the Court power to summon persons with information about the affairs of a company to appear before it and / or to produce documents. In our August bulletin we considered the decision of the English High Court in Re MF Global [2015] EWHC 2319 when it was held that s236 does not have extra-territorial effect. However, having looked at the issue again in Official Receiver v Norriss [2015] EWHC 2697, the High Court has departed from the position in Re MF Global.

This article considers the cost consequences following service of a statutory demand in two scenarios: