The Supreme Court has recently declined to hear retailer Game’s appeal, ruling that there was no arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered, particularly bearing in mind the case had already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal.

“… permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court…”

Fibria Celulose S/A v. Pan Ocean [2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch)

In a significant case regarding the application of the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (“Regulations”), the English High Court decided it would not intervene to prevent termination of an English law contract for insolvency even though such termination was inoperative or invalid under the foreign law governing the insolvency.

When trying to enforce security over property, it is important for a lender to consider the order in which the proceeds of sale will be distributed – a matter decided by the priority of any charges that exist. The general rule is that whichever legal charge is entered onto the charges register has priority, but this isn’t always the case.   

Scenarios where priority may be different 

In recent Court decisions, the balance between Administrators and Landlords has shifted backward and forwards with great regularity. Both sides have just learned that the goal posts have moved once more.

The judgment from a unanimous Court of Appeal last week has overruled the previous authorities on the issue of whether rent is payable as an expense in an Administration. In light of the decision in Jervis v Pillar Denton Ltd and Others, the decisions in Goldacre and Luminar are no longer of any effect.

The High Court has considered whether a former liquidator should be held liable under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”) for misapplying company monies in excess of half a million pounds.

The Facts

McKellar v Griffin emphasises the importance for IPs of establishing the COMI of a foreign company before accepting an appointment as administrators. 

In McKellar (decided in June 2014) the court, on the application of a foreign liquidator, declared that the administrators’ appointment was invalid because the company’s COMI was not in England and Wales. So where does that leave unfortunate insolvency practitioners in similar situations? 

In March the Government announced new pension reforms. From April 2015 pensioners reaching 55 years will be entitled to draw down their entire pension pot, to do with as they wish. Pensions minister Steve Webb was famously quoted as saying that pensioners should be able to “buy a Lamborghini” with their pension pot if they so wish. And if pensioners subsequently ran out of money, well, they would have the state pension to fall back on, after all. 

Pension deficits are by no means the only concern for charities, but they present a severe headache.

There are over 180,000 charities registered in England and Wales, employing around 2,660,000. 
Between them, the Charities Commission has reported a combined pensions deficit of over £3.4 billion. For some charities, the burden of meeting that deficit puts too much of a strain on already stretched resources. 

Key Point

A provisional liquidator may be appointed if the evidence justifies it even where the tax assessments upon which the winding up petition is based are under appeal.

Facts

D & D Wines was a leading distributor of wines, which went into administration. One of its clients was an Australian wine producer called Angove. Two of Angove’s customers, who dealt through D & D, paid the company shortly after it had gone into administration and after Angove had terminated the agency agreement. Despite this, the Court of Appeal ruled that the money belonged to the company in administration for the benefit of all its creditors and was not held on trust for Angove.