In our update this month we take a look at some of the recent cases that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:
In an important new English Court of Appeal judgment in LBI EHF v Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719 (11 April 2018), Lord Justice Flaux approved and expanded the earlier High Court judgment of Mr Justice Knowles CBE in LBI EHF (in winding up) v Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich [2017] EWHC 522 (Comm) (20 March 2017) on the correct meaning and treatment of t
Despite evidence that a defendant knew he was facing potential proceedings which could bankrupt him, at the time he transferred assets to his son, the Court of Appeal held that this was not sufficient to find that the transfer was made for the purpose of defrauding creditors. Consequently, the transfer could not be unwound under s423 Insolvency Act 1996: JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov, Madiyar Ablyazov [2018] EWCA Civ 1176.
A winding up petition is a petition to bring the life of a company to an end. From the point of view of a creditor (person/company to whom money is owed), commencing winding up proceedings should be regarded as a last resort.
Under section 122 Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”), there are certain prescribed circumstances in which a winding up petition can be filed with the court. One of those prescribed circumstances is when a company is unable to pay debts in excess of £750.
Summary: Robin Ganguly explains predictive coding and technology assisted review for trial use, and how the technology might be used for insolvency investigations.
The High Court has given judgment in a case (G4S plc v G4S Trustees Ltd) about whether a defined benefit (DB) scheme which was closed to future accrual, but whose members' benefits continued to be linked to final salary, was a "frozen" scheme for the purposes of the employer debt legislation. The Court has decided that the final salary link did not mean that the members were in pensionable service and, as a result, the scheme was frozen. This is important for employers (and trustees) of closed schemes where the members retain a final salary link.
The Court of Appeal has today handed down judgment in the case of Orexim Trading Limited v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1660, raising important issues as to the service of claims under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 out of the jurisdiction.
In the recent decision in Carlos Sevilleja Garcia v Marex Financial Limited,1 the Court of Appeal helpfully summarised the justifications for the English law rule against claims for reflective loss and confirmed that the rule applies equally to unsecured creditors of a company as it does to shareholders.
Highlights
In the recent decision of Orexim Trading Limited v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the Court does have power to permit service of a claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 outside England and Wales. However, in the circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal declined to exercise its discretion to grant permission to serve the claim form outside the jurisdiction. HFW acted for the successful First Respondent, Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited (MPT).
Background