The Facts

On 12 September 2012, the joint liquidators of a company brought claims for wrongful trading against its former directors, arguing that they knew (or ought to have concluded) before the date it entered liquidation that the company could not avoid insolvent liquidation. At first instance, Registrar Jones held that the directors were liable for wrongful trading and should pay compensation of £35,000. The directors appealed this decision.

The Decision

Key Points

• Costs incurred in preparing to comply with disclosure orders not payable by liquidators

• Protection for wasted costs should have been sought earlier in the proceedings

The Facts

Summary

The case provides guidance for liquidators as to the appropriate exercise to conduct when deciding whether the threshold of 25% in value of creditor claims has been reached in support of a request for a creditors’ meeting under s 171.

Key point

• A liquidator is not required to apply a ‘strict proof’ test to a creditor’s claim at the requisition stage of a creditors meeting.

The facts

In November 2014, the company entered into a creditor’s voluntary liquidation.

The Facts

An administrator was appointed over a company out of court and the administration extended on a handful of occasions. The administrator was then replaced by block transfer, but the administration subsequently expired before it was concluded.

The new administrator therefore applied for a new administration order to apply retrospectively from the date of expiry of the old order.

Summary

The court was prepared to provide for immediate release of administrators from office and to wind up a company without presentation of a petition.

The Facts

Administrators applied to court for their release, the winding up of the company and their appointment as liquidators.

The company’s remaining asset was a leasehold interest with an ultimate landlord, the immediate landlord having surrendered its interest.

In the recent case of SCI Senior Home (in Administration) v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down judgment on the question of whether a right in rem created under national law should be considered a "right in rem" for the purposes of Article 5 of the Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the "Insolvency Regulation").

Background

In the recent case of Gillan v HEC Enterprises Ltd (in administration) and Ors [2016] EWHC 3179 (Ch), the High Court considered (1) in what circumstances administrators can recover costs and expenses incurred in dealing with trust property and (2) how the administrators’ costs in applying for a Berkeley Applegate order and other litigation were to be dealt with.

Background

PricewaterhouseCoopers sought to recover their costs in complying with disclosure orders obtained by the Liquidators of Saad Investments Co Ltd and Singularis Holdings Ltd. The disclosure orders were ultimately set aside but the costs appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal of Bermuda.

A prominent High Court case involving TV presenter Trinny Woodall and her late ex-husband’s creditors has provided a useful insight into the handling of debts following a divorce.

Ms Woodall married Johnny Elichaoff in 1999 and after a ten year marriage, the couple divorced in 2009.

During the divorce settlement it was agreed that Mr Elichaoff would pay Ms Woodall and their daughter £24,000 a year and repay a sum of £1.4 million to her.

However, just nine days before the divorce was finalised Mr Elichaoff was made bankrupt and the repayment was later declared void.

Transactions Defrauding Creditors

In JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and another the Court considered the transfer of £1.1million from Mukhtar Ablyazov to his son in 2009 at a time when his son was 17. The money was used by the son for investments in support of his Tier 1 investor visa. The investments matured in March 2014 and were held in the son’s account.