The rules relating to income payment orders ("IPO") and income payment agreements ("IPA") are largely unchanged. The time periods dictated in the old rules for IPOs and IPAs remain the same, however there are some added requirements in the new rules, particularly in relation to the contents of notices and orders.

Rule 10.109 Application for income payments order (section 310)

[…]

(4) the notice to the bankrupt must be authenticated and dated by the trustee.

Rule 10.110 Order for income payments order

Disclaimer - Rules 19.1 - 19.11

The Rules relating to Disclaimer remain largely unchanged, except for bankruptcy and liquidation being included in the same section and some minor updates to the Act. The deadlines for all actions remain unchanged.

19.8 - Application for permission to disclaim in bankruptcy (section 315(4))

The notes in this section refer to changes within the Act as amended by the Deregulation Act 2015 and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.

Following the collapse of Banco Espirito Santo, the Court of Appeal held that a $835m loan had not been transferred to Novo Banco.

This case concerns a Court of Appeal hearing following the 2014 collapse of substantial Portuguese bank Banco Espirito Santo ('BES').

In June 2014, Oak Finance Luxembourg SA ('Oak') entered a facility agreement with BES to lend approximately $835million. The agreement contained English law and jurisdiction clauses.

The UK Commercial Court has dismissed the Claimant's application for a stay under Article 28 of the Judgments Regulation.

In our June seminars we discussed the Pre-Pack Pool and the proposed changes to SIP 16. The revision was recommended by Teresa Graham as part of her independent review into pre-packs in June 2014, and the new SIP 16 was introduced on 2 November 2015 to coincide with the launch of the Pre-Pack Pool.

Key provisions of the revised SIP 16, which remains virtually unchanged from the draft issued in January this year, include:

The joint liquidators of Peak Hotels & Resorts Limited ("Peak") brought an unsuccessful appeal that a legal charge held over funds paid into court ("Funds") was incapable of enforcement. The court dismissed the appeal on the basis that Peak did retain a proprietary interest over the funds.

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.

Two big name high street retailers entered Administration in February: On 28 February, Toys R Us, whose financial struggles had been attracting media attention (not least from Ashfords' Restructuring & Insolvency Bulletin) since before Christmas, finally threw in the towel and appointed Administrators from Moorfields; while electrical goods firm Maplin also appointed PwC on the same day.

The Facts

The latest decision in the Shlosberg saga that has turned the issue of privilege and use of documents on its head - this time considering the practical implications of how office holders can use information they have obtained by compulsion for the purposes of their investigations.

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.