The English Court granted recognition of Chapter 11 proceedings in relation to a company that was incorporated in the UK but had its centre of main interests ("COMI") in the United States, confirming that the Directors were foreign representatives for the purpose of the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("the Regulations").

The English High Court has for the first time directly addressed the question of the extra-territorial application of s233 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Official Receiver as Liquidator of Sahaviriya Streel Industries UK Ltd sought an order to restore access to an IT system provided to the Company by its parent company in Thailand. In granting permission to the Official Receiver to serve the application out of the jurisdiction, the Court was persuaded by the reasoning in the recent cases of Jetivia and Re Paramount Airways which concerned other provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Following the decision in Wagner v White, Connor Pierce, solicitor at Ashfords LLP, looks at how the courts have been dealing with bankruptcy petitions which lenders have presented against guarantors when the principal borrower fails to repay the loan. Pierce also considers the ways in which guarantors have tried to have the lender’s statutory demand set aside. Wagner v White [2018] EWHC 2882 (Ch), [2018] All ER (D) 16 (Nov)

The Facts

Mr Tailby and Mr Courtman were appointed Administrators over three connected companies: TPS Investments (UK) Ltd; ABC Prop Co Holdings Ltd and CP Investment Holdings Limited. TPS was a property developer and owned a number of properties; two of these were transferred to ABC and one to CP.

The Swiss government presented a draft bill in May 2017 which was approved by the Swiss Council of States in December 2017 with very few amendments. The revised law could be effective as from 1 January 2019 if the Swiss National Council approves the revision this year.

Key changes include:

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