Procedural framework

Paragraphs 49 to 55 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 provide the statutory framework within which administrators seek approval of their proposals.

An administrator must make a statement setting out proposals for achieving the purpose of the administration within eight weeks of the company’s entry into administration and the administrator must seek a decision from the company’s creditors as to whether the creditors approve those proposals or not.

A case of two companies, one incorporated in Dubai and the other in England, involved in a network of businesses producing contrived fancy colour diamond valuations were eventually wound up by English courts in the interest of the public.

What is a freezing order?

The purpose of a freezing order is to preserve the defendant's assets until judgment can be enforced. It operates by granting an injunction prohibiting the defendant (or anyone on his behalf) from disposing of identified assets. Legally, it does not operate as security over the assets.

Taylor v Van Dutch Marine Holding Ltd

Claimant Litigant in Person recovers 150 per hour for his time

Spencer and another v Paul Jones Financial Services Ltd (unreported), 6 January 2017 (Senior Courts Costs Office)

Summary

A claimant litigant in person can recover costs at his typical hourly rate (150). Whilst the burden of proving such financial loss lies on the claimant, the burden is not impossibly high.

Facts

Karhoo, a US incorporated company able to benefit from the Chapter 15 US bankruptcy code provision for foreign insolvency proceedings following UK Administration.

A recent decision in the High Court has seen an application for pre-action disclosure of an insurance policy dismissed because the defendant was not insolvent.

Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company owned a warehouse that was damaged by a fire caused by Dornoch. They argued that their claim was highly likely to win but that, if it did, it would cause Dornoch to become insolvent.

Peel Port therefore sought ‘pre-action disclosure’, meaning Dornoch would have to disclose applicable insurance cover information to Peel Port before they decided whether to proceed.

Key Points 

• Directors cannot file a notice of intention to appoint (NoI) without a ‘settled intention’ to appoint an administrator

• NoIs cannot be used where there is no qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH)

• The judgment has implications for validity of appointments where requirements not met

The Facts

[2017] EWHC 1206 (Ch)

Deputy Judge Alexander QC had to consider an application for an order that R be restrained from proceeding further with a creditor’s petition to wind up B. The Judge was in no doubt that the application was misconceived. First B was not unable to pay its debts. B on the evidence provided to the court was solvent with cash in hand and a substantial unused credit facility. Further, the reason B had not paid the substantial sums claimed was that it had arguable defences as well as substantial cross-claims of its own. The Judge was clear that:

A Court of Appeal judgment held that a company must have a settled intention to appoint an administrator when filing a notice of intent (NOI) under paragraph 26 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”) . The court also confirmed that an NOI cannot be filed in the absence of a qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH) on which to serve the notice.

Background

The bankrupt and her husband, the appellant, were joint tenants of a business premises pursuant to an underlease. The trustee in bankruptcy disclaimed ‘all my/our interest in Leasehold property under the terms of the [underlease] in respect of [the property]’.

Appellant’s Case

The appellant contended that the disclaimer operated such as to prevent the landlords from claiming for rent in the bankruptcy estate post disclaimer.

Landlords’ Case