The recent case of Re Ralls Builders Limited has confirmed that in circumstances where the company is heading for liquidation directors cannot escape a wrongful trading claim by ignoring individual creditors. It emphasises the importance of taking the correct legal advice at an early stage.
On 12 February 2016 Snowden J handed down his judgment in Indah Kiat International Finance Company B.V. [2016] EWHC 246 (Ch). Indah Kiat International Finance Company B.V. ("Indah Kiat"), part of the global Asia Pulp & Paper Group (one of the world's largest pulp and paper manufacturers), applied for an order convening a meeting of scheme creditors to consider and, if thought fit, approve a proposed scheme of arrangement (the "Scheme") under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006.
A possible alternative to the freezing injunction.
A judgment has recently provided helpful guidance on a creative form of injunction. The “notification order” compels a defendant to give notice to the claimant before disposing or dealing with its assets. This notification order is less onerous than a freezing injunction, and although it usually accompanies the freezing injunction, in this case, the order was issued as standalone relief. The notification would alert the claimant to apply for a freezing injunction prior to dissipation of any assets.
The decision of the High Court inVanquish Properties (UK) Limited Partnership –v- Brook Street (UK) Limited provides a stark reminder of the strict requirements for serving a valid break notice and the traps into which the unwary can easily fall.
The actuary is not required to consider the security of benefits where a bulk transfer without member consents is proposed, the Court has decided.
A transfer without consent cannot be made unless the actuary certifies that, in their opinion, the past service rights each member will be credited with in the receiving scheme will be "broadly no less favourable" than their rights in the transferring scheme.
A proposed shakeup of the UK’s corporate insolvency regime will impose a three month freeze on legal action against stressed businesses who are investigating rescue options. In addition to this moratorium, measures have been suggested to help businesses to continue trading through the restructuring process. The intention is that this will prevent struggling companies being held to ransom by key suppliers, and will also assist in developing flexible restructuring plans. The proposal would make rescue schemes binding, even on secured creditors.
In June 2016, after a period of experimentation, the SFO promulgated an amended set of policies concerning the exercise of its power to conduct compelled interviews under Section 2 (s2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (CJA). Part of this package is a document entitled “Presence of an interviewee’s legal adviser at a section 2 interview”. This expounds the SFO’s view as to their proper role whilst attending a s2 interview with their interviewee client.
Key points
- Court does not have jurisdiction to direct detailed assessment of fees agreed by administrators on application of liquidator
- Administrators can agree solicitors’ fees for work carried out during the administration after they cease holding office
- The court has no inherent jurisdiction to direct a detailed assessment
The facts
Key points
- There have been conflicting decisions on whether a person may be made the subject of any income payments order (IPO)
- This case suggests that the court will not make an IPO in respect of unelected pension entitlements
The facts
The facts