In recent years some high profile (and controversial) court decisions have swelled the list of liabilities that must be paid as expenses of an administration. Administration expenses enjoy "super priority", being payable out of floating charge realisations ahead of the claims of preferential creditors and floating charge holders. So, when an otherwise unsecured claim ranks as an administration expense, it clearly benefits the relevant creditor, but at the expense of the floating charge holder.

The High Court has recently considered whether a bankrupt individual of pensionable age can be forced to draw his pension to pay his creditors.

Raithatha v. Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch)

Background

A bankruptcy order was made against Mr Raithatha on 9 November 2010. Mr Raithatha's trustee in bankruptcy applied for an income payments order (IPO) against Mr Raithatha's pension shortly before he was due to be discharged from bankruptcy. Mr Raithatha was then aged 59 and his pension scheme allowed him to draw a pension from age 55.

Recovery of legal costs in insolvency proceedings can be a difficult procedure, as the ability of counsel to claim costs depends on the work performed, the timing of the work, and for whom the work was done.

In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Re Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc., Justice Pepall examined the conflicting interests that arise where companies within a group of restructuring companies have made intercompany loans to one another, and where the board of directors mirror each other in each subsidiary.

The Wage Earner Protection Program Act, S.C. 2005, c. 47 (the “WEPPA”), came into force on July 7, 2008. This paper will set out the implications of the WEPPA on insolvency practice and provide a brief analysis of Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. and 383838 B.C. Ltd. (Re), 2009 BCSC 41 (“LeRoy Trucking”), the only reported decision regarding the WEPPA (as at the date of this paper) since the legislation came into force.

I. Introduction to the WEPPA

On November 25, LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. (“LandAmerica”) filed a Chapter 11 petition in Virginia, seeking bankruptcy protection. By separate agreement (the “Stock Purchase Agreement”), LandAmerica agreed to sell Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (“Commonwealth”) to Chicago Title Insurance Company (“Chicago Title”) and Lawyers Title Insurance Company (“Lawyers”) and United Capital Title Insurance Company (“United”) to Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (“Fidelity”).

Ernst & Young Inc. was appointed by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta as the Receiver and Manager of an Alberta Corporation named Klytie’s Development Inc., its Colorado subsidiary, and the two primary shareholders of the debtor companies

 (1) Citicorp Trustee Company Limited and (2) Golden Belt Sukuk Company BSC v. (1) Maan Al-Sanea and (2) Saad Trading, Contracting and Financial Services Co [2017] EWHC 2845 (Comm)

In this case, the High Court considered whether valid service had been effected upon two defendants based outside of the jurisdiction who had shown no willingness to be involved in the proceedings.

A case study of W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Tycoon Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2016] SGHC 80

Overview

Russia has continually been working to improve the functioning of its judicial system and the administration of justice for more than two decades. The active reforms began with a decree by the Russian president creating the judiciary as a branch of the state, separate from the legislature and the executive, and these reforms have yet to be completed. In fact, we are now seeing a new level of reform, in which the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation will cease to exist and its powers will pass to the newly formed Supreme Court of Russia.