The Facts

The Claimant purchased various rights to action from the Liquidator of a Company. The Deed of Assignment included the right to bring a claim for "alleged illegal dividends and/or transactions at an undervalue" arising out of payments to the Defendant, a director/shareholder, had received. It is important to note that the Deed of Assignment did not grant the right to bring a claim for Preference.

The Appeals process is governed by Rules 12.59; 12.61 and Schedule 11. The old corresponding provisions were Rules 7.47 and 7.49A.

The major change to the provisions is that there is now clarification on appealing decisions made by District Judges. The new rules provide that these appeals will now lie either to a High Court Judge in a District Registry or a Registrar in Bankruptcy at the High Court. This was previously the case, but was only inserted into the old rules by way of an Amendment - they now come fully under the scope of the rules.

It is an unfortunate reality that many farming businesses are operating at their limits and are struggling financially. There are several aspects of the insolvency law that should be borne in mind should you run your farm through a limited company that begins to face financial difficulty.

Directors' Duties

Directors' duties under the Companies Act:

The English Court refused an application by Liquidators to stay English proceedings pending the outcome of similar proceedings in the US.

The Joint Liquidators of a Luxembourg company ("the Company") applied to stay English proceedings that they had brought against private equity investors ("the Defendants") until similar proceedings in the US had been resolved, or for three months to enable the Liquidators to raise finance for the litigation.

The Court applied sections 423-425 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA) to the transfer of an interest in a Ukrainian television station. When analysing the Defendant's actions the Court considered the transaction was made for a prohibited purpose.

Background

The Facts

The case concerned an application made by the Liquidators of a BVI incorporated company, Peak Hotels and Resorts Limited ("Peak"). The application was intended to determine the effectiveness of a charge granted by Peak to Candey Limited, Peak's former solicitor.

Peak was the holding company of a joint venture vehicle that became the subject of lengthy international litigation proceedings following the breakdown of relations between the joint venture partners and shareholders. Candey acted for peak in the litigation.

Capital Funding One Limited (the "Company") arranged short term bridging finance for borrowers who were unable to obtain loans from more conventional sources. The funding for these loans were obtained from King Street Bridging Limited ("King Street").

This case considers section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986, namely the rules on avoidance of certain floating charges, and provides analysis of the application of s245 notwithstanding the Liquidation originated in the British Virgin Islands.

Budniok v Adjudicator, Insolvency Service [2017] EWHC 368 (Ch)

Chief Registrar Baister overturned the Adjudicator's decision in refusing to grant a Bankruptcy Order where the Debtor's COMI was an issue.

Mr Budniok, a German citizen who had recently moved to London, applied online for a Bankruptcy Order in England. After several requests for further information, the Adjudicator was not satisfied Mr Budniok's centre of main interests ("COMI") was in England and as such refused the application. Mr Budniok appealed.

After much delay, the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the 2010 Act) came into force on 1 August 2016. The 2010 Act aims to assist parties wishing to claim against insolvent companies and individuals who supply professional services by allowing them to claim directly against their insurers.