Key Point

No recognition order was made where the main foreign insolvency proceedings had ended even where the plan agreed in those proceedings was in part still to be implemented.

The Facts

Key point

The Court of Appeal has recently given detailed guidance on what happens to the surpluses available in the insolvency of companies after dealing with an appeal in relation to the so-called Lehman Waterfall Application dealt with in an earlier Update.

Facts

Key point

A Court always has discretion whether to set aside a statutory demand based upon cross claims.

The facts

A debtor applied to Court to have a statutory demand set aside on the basis that he had a counter claim which, if set against the debt, would leave less than £750 outstanding. 

The decision

In a challenging economy bankruptcy increasingly stands accused of constituting a mechanism for debtors to escape their responsibilities at their creditors' expense. It understandably remains a live debate as to whether a bankrupt should be afforded the means of a protected pot of money for his future use while his creditors are left unrecompensed for their loss. The debate is not new, but the balance has perhaps shifted in a climate where creditor losses are felt particularly keenly.

Key point

Changing the governing law of a credit agreement or loan notes to English law helps to form a basis to implement an English scheme of arrangement.

The facts

In addition to the general insolvency measures found in the Insolvency Act 1986, insurance intermediaries are subject to specific client money rules, which have a particular effect if they become insolvent. Though in the context of investment firms rather than the insurance sector, the recent UK Supreme Court case of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) v CRC Credit Fund and ors [2012] UKSC 6 (LBIE) is a useful decision against which to consider the application of many of these client money rules.

The Supreme Court has confirmed in Jetivia v Bilta that where a company brings a claim against its directors for losses caused by their wrongdoing, the directors cannot escape the claim by arguing that their actions are attributed to the company itself.

The Supreme Court also held that s.213 of the Insolvency Act, (which permits the Court to take action against those who  have conducted the business of a company in order to defraud creditors) was not jurisdictionally confined and applied to people and companies resident outside the UK.

The recent appeal to the High Court in Woolsey v Payne [2015] EWHC 968 (Ch), from the Chief Registrar in insolvency proceedings, considered the application of sections 16B and 74(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which relate to the enforceability of loans made for business purposes and/or in the course of a business.

In the United Kingdom, the Pension Protection Fund (“PPF”) is the safety net for the employee members of a defined benefit pension plan or scheme.  The PPF compensates members when an employer has not and cannot put sufficient assets in the pension scheme to meet its obligations to member employees and the employer has suffered a “qualifying insolvency event”.

DTEK Finance B.V., Re [2015] EWHC 1164 (Ch)