In Paul David Wood & Anor v Timothy Darren Baker & Ors, the joint trustees in bankruptcy of the bankrupt's property successfully obtained injunctions freezing the assets and business of the respondents and restraining them from dealing with such assets and business.  This case is an illustration of how the court may apply the "evasion principle", a principle identified in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd, in piercing the corporate veil.

Background

Much time is spent by MLAs and Sponsors negotiating the list of unanimous lender decisions in a leveraged finance syndicated facilities agreement. The Sponsor will be concerned that its portfolio company should not find itself "held to ransom" on a waiver request by a dissenting minority lender. On the other hand, lenders require certain fundamental transaction terms to be entrenched so that key decisions cannot be taken without them. Commonly, changes which would increase the facilities, reduce the margin or extend the final repayment date will require the consent of all lenders.

Summary

On 14 October 2015, the Court of Appeal overturned a decision that two payments had been made in breach of a freezing order. The order prohibited the respondent to the freezing injunction application from dealing with or disposing of any of its assets other than in the ordinary and proper course of business. The Court held that the judge at first instance had taken too narrow a view in construing this exception and that, in light of the specific facts of the case, the freezing order had not been breached.

In a lecture delivered on 16 October, Lord Justice Jackson has argued the case in favour of bringing insolvency litigation into line with other types of civil litigation, where CFA success fees and ATE insurance premiums are no longer recoverable from losing opponents: see the 2015 Mustill lecture “The Civil Justice Reforms and Whether Insolvency Litigation Should Be Exempt”. 

The suitability of the collective consultation regime under the Trade Union and Labour Relation (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”) in an insolvency scenario has always been a hot topic amongst insolvency professionals.

‘Visit England’ promotes tourism to England and Wales by reference to the beautiful scenery, world-class museums and abundance of culture on offer. Following the recent judgment of JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman & Ors [2015] EWHC 396 (Ch) (Kekhman), it should consider adding an advantageous personal insolvency regime to this list. 

I am sure many of you may be aware already that as of the 1st October 2015 the Bankruptcy Limit has increased to £5,000 whilst a Winding up Order remains the same at £750.00.

The limit debtor's can apply for a Debt Relief Order has also been increased from £15,000 to £20,000.

On 14 September 2015, judgment was handed down in the case of Re SSRL Realisations Limited (In Administration), in which a landlord was granted permission to forfeit a lease by peaceable re-entry. The case will be of interest to insolvency practitioners and landlords alike – but for very different reasons.

A recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the transfer of undertakings and the “retention of identity” of part of a business is instructive to practitioners in advising on the transfer (or potential transfer) of employees.

In John David Hedger (the Liquidator of Pro4Sport Ltd) v David Adams [2015], the Liquidator of Pro4Sport Ltd (Pro4Sport) made an application to the Court under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The claim arose out of one transaction which took place shortly before the liquidation of Pro4Sport on 20 July 2012. On 25 June 2012 Mr Adams, on behalf of Pro4Sport, transferred all, or practically all, of the assets of Pro4Sport to an associated company, Pro4Sport.co.uk Ltd (Pro4Sport.co.uk) for a deferred consideration of £47,000 plus VAT.