Key Points
- Trustees in bankruptcy entitled to more than return of shares wrongfully transferred by bankrupt
- Trustees also entitled to recover loss in the value of shares
- Appropriate basis of valuation was fair value (not market value)
The Facts
BACKGROUND
Halcrow Group Limited (HGL) and Halcrow Water Services Limited (together Halcrow), two subsidiaries of Halcrow Holdings Limited (HHL), were the sponsoring employers with legal responsibility for funding the Halcrow Pension Scheme (HPS).
On 21 July 2016, an increase in the fees for bankruptcy and company insolvency came into force.
The new fees will apply to any petition which is lodged with the Adjudicator or filed with the court on or after 21 July 2016. The new fee structure will also apply to any bankruptcy order or compulsory winding up order made on or after this date.
The changes to existing fees and deposits are as follows:
Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1001
Law firm Dechert LLP has been ordered to cease acting for the principal creditor of bankrupt Russian businessman, Mr Shlosberg, because it also acted for the trustees in bankruptcy, and accordingly had had access to documents subject to Mr Shlosberg's legal professional privilege.
Facts
Monday 23 May saw the turn of the advisers. This update concentrates on what we will call “adviser group 1” comprising Emma King, the trustees pension lawyer (Eversheds); David Clarke, covenants adviser to the trustees (KPMG); Tony Clare, restructuring pensions adviser to Taveta Investments Limited, the previous owner of BHS (Deloitte); Ian Greenstreet, pension lawyer to Taveta Investments Limited (Nabarro); and Richard Cousins, the independent actuary to the Taveta group (PWC).
The Facts
Mr Shlosberg, a Russian businessman domiciled in England who was made bankrupt in January of last year, has obtained an injunction restraining Dechert LLP from acting on behalf of the main claimant, Avonwick Holdings Limited (Avonwick) in proceedings in which he is a defendant.
Key points
Rights under s23, s24 and s31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (the “Act”) can only be pursued by the spouses themselves. Consequently, any ongoing action brought pursuant to those sections of the Act does not vest in the trustee in bankruptcy on appointment.
The facts
In my recent article with respect to individuals applying for bankruptcy online, dated 4 April 2016, I reported that the Insolvency Service must be vigilant with respect to abuse. In particular, it is a debtor’s duty is to provide the Official Receiver or Trustee with details of all known assets. Failing to do this is an offence, under Section 354(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).
The recent case of Oraki v Bramston and Defty [2015] EWHC 2046 (Ch) concerned former bankrupts' claims of professional negligence against their former trustees in bankruptcy (“the Trustees”). In dismissing the claims, the High Court held that the Trustees did not owe a common law duty of care to the bankrupts.
Patrick Hill and Declan Finn of DAC Beachcroft LLP, who acted on behalf of the successful Trustees, discuss the case and consider its implications for trustees in bankruptcy.
Background
New legislation came in to force on 21 July 2014 with the intention of granting entry to the Pension Protection Fund (the “PPF”) for those members of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme (the “Scheme”). The members of the Scheme had previously been denied entry as a result of a Court of Appeal decision in the case of the Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA.