The Supreme Court's decision in Lehman Waterfall I was handed down this morning. DLA Piper represents one of the successful appellants, Lehman Brothers Limited (in administration) (LBL).

The court was asked to consider certain issues relating to distributions in the estate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), an unlimited company in administration. Such issues arose due to a substantial anticipated surplus in LBIE and sought to resolve particular lacunas in UK insolvency legislation.

There have been a number of cases in recent years in which a party has sought to utilise the provisions of the CPR in order to obtain information on the opposing party's insurance arrangements, rather than waiting for that party to go insolvent in order to use the procedures provided by the Third Parties Rights Act 1930 or 2010. The recent case of Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co v Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC) looks at this again in light of the discretion which Judges have under CPR31.16 for applications for pre-action disclosure and attempts to shut the door on such actions.

Summary

A liquidator rejected creditors’ claims. The creditors successfully appealed that decision and sought the costs of that application from the liquidator personally under rule 4.83 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (as it then was) on the assertion that the reason the liquidator rejected the claims was that they exceeded the value of a potential misfeasance claim against the creditors and he did not want set off to defeat the misfeasance claim.

Creditors’ Case

When reviewing a security for costs application under CPR 25.12, the courts are faced with the challenge of striking a balance between an impecunious claimant’s access to justice and the possibility of a successful defendant being unable to recover their costs. This is because the general rule in relation to costs under CPR 44.2 is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the successful party.

In a judgment that will undoubtedly impact what has become fairly common practice when filing notices of intention to appoint an administrator (“NOITA”), the Court of Appeal has held in JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Ltd v Davis Haulage Ltd[1] that a company seeking to give notice of intention to appoint under paragraph 26 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”), and to file a copy o

This case raised the issue of when a company in financial distress (or the directors of that company) should issue a Notice of Intention to Appoint an Administrator (“NOITA”) which affords a moratorium under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”).

The Facts

The liquidator of a company refused to requisition a meeting of creditors on the basis that it was being called by the potential defendants to actions arising out of his investigations with the purpose of removing him and stymying any claims. The liquidator applied to Court for a direction not to summon the meeting.

The Decision

As of 25 April 2017, for courts within the Chancery division of the High Court in London, the filing of all applications, forms and documents must be performed electronically. This includes the Bankruptcy and Companies Courts within Greater London. It does not apply to the High Courts outside London.

The court’s sanction of DTEK's latest scheme includes novel references to its outstanding bank debt and helpfully rules on the controversial 'domicile test'.

This month the new Insolvency Rules 2016 came into force, replacing the Insolvency Rules 1986. We cover this, and other issues affecting professionals in the insolvency and fraud investigation industry below.