As well as serving as a useful reminder of the law surrounding wrongful trading and the operation of section 214 Insolvency Act 1986, this recent High Court decision clarified where the burden of proof lies in defending a wrongful trading case.

Background

Key Points

Mitigation of loss by a claimant does not always mean that liability under negligence claims is avoided

The Facts

In April 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal bought by The Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme ("the Scheme") and held that Olympic Airlines SA ("Olympic Airlines") did not have an "establishment" in the UK when the Trustees presented a winding up petition in England on 20 July 2010.

The significance of the decision is that without a "qualifying insolvency event", the Scheme would not enter the Pension Protection Fund ("PPF") and is of significance for any defined benefit pension scheme of a UK branch office of an overseas company.

(1) PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC and (2) Product Shipping and Trading S.A. v (1) OW Bunker Malta Limited and (2) ING Bank N.V. [2015] EWHC 2022 (Comm)

Did you know that if a company is listed on the Interim Permission Consumer Credit Register that the directors of the company need the written consent of the FCA before they can file a notice of intention to appoint administrators (“NOI”), and failure to obtain FCA consent renders any subsequent appointment invalid?

Most businesses that; offer goods or services on credit, lend money to consumers, or provide debt solutions and advice to consumers will be carrying out consumer credit activities, and may well have an interim permission and be listed on the Consumer Credit Register.

At a time when insolvency practitioner’s (“IPs”) fees are being scrutinised more closely than ever, the case of Bell v Birchall and others [2015] is a timely reminder to IPs to consider the necessity of the work they propose to undertake, particularly in respect of assets that do not form part of the insolvent estate. In this case, the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to make a “Berkeley Applegate” order.

Following on from our earlier advice on enforcing money judgments, Walker Morris’ banking litigators answer some more frequently asked questions.

Client Question 3

I have heard that I can enforce a money judgment via a third party debt order or an attachment of earnings.  What are these and what are the advantages/disadvantages?

Walker Morris Answer

Directors of companies incorporated in England and Wales must be mindful of their duties and responsibilities to the company as well as the potential personal liability that could arise from breaching those duties and responsibilities in the context of an insolvency.

With the current financial difficulties faced by the oil & gas industry, this issue is especially pertinent to that sector.

The High Court in London gave judgment on parts A and B of the Lehman Waterfall II Application on 31 July 2015.  The application is part of the ongoing dispute as to the distribution of the estimated surplus of more than £7 billion in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

On 31 July 2015, the English High Court delivered its judgments in the ‘Waterfall IIA’ and ‘Waterfall IIB’ cases. The decisions are important to stakeholders in determining key questions about how, following payment in 2014 of all the provable claims, the estimated £7.39-billion surplus (the ‘Surplus’) in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (‘LBIE’) will be shared amongst them. For others, the decisions may be of general interest in probing some rarely aired legal issues relating to the lower levels of the insolvency payment waterfall.