The English High Court has granted an injunction to trustees in bankruptcy and pierced the corporate veil of companies which were operated by a bankrupt as his agents and nominees and which held assets on his behalf (Wood and another v Baker and others [2015] EWHC 2536 (Ch)).

Background

In September 2013 we reported on the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 which provided the Government with the power to extend the law regarding the supply of essential services to insolvent customers. These reforms were anticipated to come into force in April 2014. It has now been announced that the changes will come into force on 1 October 2015.

Extension of essential supplies

This month’s summary of “also ran” update items forms a fairly eclectic mix, however some useful items can be pulled out of them.

PPF guidance to Insolvency Practitioners onpre-pack

Mistaken discharge of land mortgages and rectification atthe Land Registry – can a discharged mortgage secure asubsequent advance?

It is well-established law that a mortgage can be used to secure further advances made by a lender. What happens when a registered mortgage is mistakenly discharged at the Land Registry however? Can it be rectified and used as security for a subsequent advance? NRAM Plc v Evans and another - 2015 EWHC 1543 explores the issues.

The English High Court has, in one of the few successful cases on wrongful trading, clarified when directors ought to know that there is no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation and where the burden of proof lies in such cases.

Background

The recent decision in Brooks and Willetts (Joint Liquidators of Robin Hood Centre plc) v Armstrong and Walker [2015] EWHC 2289 sets out guidance on the burden of proof for directors in wrongful trading claims when seeking to establish that they have taken every step to minimise the potential loss to creditors. We explore the issues raised for practitioners.

The background to the case

The question of appropriate action in the face of directors’ duties to creditors in the pre-insolvency “twilight zone” is a perennial one. In particular, the question of preservation of asset value (given all the hoo- ha about pre-packs), and whether to transfer out assets before insolvency has an impact on value, is fraught with difficulty. Two recent cases offer contrasting versions of how to go about it.

Background – Re French UK plc

We all know that statutory demand can be issued for undisputed debts in excess of £750, and if not satisfied for 21 days, the stat demand is prima facie evidence of insolvency. What happens where there are multiple dents of less than £750 each however? Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Ltd [2015] EWHC 1177 (Ch) provides an insight.

The background

Introduction

In The STX Mumbai [2015] SGCA 35, a five-member Court of Appeal sat to hear an admiralty case for the first time. The case involved a novel issue of an anticipatory breach of an executed contract. The significance of this case is two-fold: under what circumstances may legal action be brought before the credit period expires and also, whether insolvency of a parent company has an impact on its subsidiary, possibly disregarding the corporate veils.

The English High Court has again considered whether by itself the choice of English law and court jurisdiction in legal documentation establishes a “sufficient connection” with England to enable a foreign company to avail itself of an English scheme of arrangement.

Background