The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2015 (SI 2015/1819) which comes into force on 16 November 2015 is set to change the landscape on how creditors pursue debts.

The cost of presenting a bankruptcy or winding up petition will increase for petitions presented on or after 16 November 2015.  This is not welcome news to many creditors as the increase may result in smaller debts being harder to recover, forcing more claims to be issued through the Small Claims Court which can often be a lengthy process and not always cost effective.

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) levy Determination for 2016/17 was published on 17 December 2015. It follows a consultation with PPF stakeholders which was launched in September this year. The levy Determination sets out the rules for calculating a scheme’s annual PPF levy. In our September Update we reported on the key changes which were being proposed as part of the 2016/17 consultation process.    

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 Purewal v Countrywide Residential Lettings Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1122, the receivers of a property did not make an insurance claim in relation to damage to the property.  The mortgagor of the property (a bankrupt) repaired the property himself.  He brought an action against the receivers for breach of duty by failing to make an insurance claim, claiming damages for the cost of the repairs.

Welcome Welcome to Private Equity News, our private equity update which keeps you informed of current issues and news in the private equity industry. For further information on any issues raised in Private Equity News or private equity generally please email richard.

The High Court has considered whether the title to a freehold property could be re-vested in a company restored to the register of companies where the Crown had disclaimed its interest whilst the company was dissolved.

Background

In Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc and another (2015), the High Court declined to set aside an order under CPR Part 71 that a non-resident foreign officer of a judgment debtor provide information needed to enforce the judgment.  There is no requirement that there be "exceptional circumstances" for such an order to be made. 

Background