The case held that a judge was right to strike out a claim brought by a liquidator under sections 238 and 241 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as the transactions alleged to have been made at an undervalue were not transactions entered into by the company.
Comment
The Administrators of a group of companies put their proposals before the creditors who failed to approve the proposals. Indeed, they failed to vote at all. The Administrators applied for the proposals to be approved by the Court. It was held that such approval was not required unless the proposals were actively opposed by creditors. In the absence of such approval, the judge considered that the administrators have the power to act in their own discretion. The judge also used the case to comment on the standard form of proposals used by most insolvency practitioners.
The decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session was released last week in the keenly awaited application by the liquidators of Scottish Coal who sought directions on whether a liquidator appointed to a Scottish company could:
Summary
On 18 December 2013, judgment of the High Court in England and Wales was handed down in a case relating to the insolvency of Lehman Brothers companies (In the Matters of Storm Funding Limited (In Administration) and Others [2013] EWHC 4019 (Ch)).
On 13 December 2013, the Court of Session ruled that the liquidators of The Scottish Coal Company Limited (SCC) were not able to disclaim ownership of certain open-cast mines and the environmental permits which were connected with the operation of those mines. This ruling followed an appeal by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), and overturns the previous decision of 11 July 2013, in which it had been ruled that the liquidators were entitled to disclaim this property.
IPs are always on guard for potential conversion claims - but what happens when no title can be established? Euromex clarifies the whole mess.
The background
CASE SNAPSHOT
In the matter of the Nortel Companies, the UK Supreme Court found that pension liabilities attributed to a company that arose prior to the occurrence of an insolvency event were not entitled to priority treatment, even if the first demand for payment was only made after the insolvency event occurred.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Pension Act
Parties wishing to resist the enforcement of an adjudication decision on the grounds of insolvency usually need to show that the claiming party will not be in a position to repay the amount of the decision if required to do so in later court or arbitration proceedings. Two recent cases in the TCC have, however, shown that different considerations can apply in the less typical circumstances of a members’ voluntary liquidation and a creditors voluntary arrangement.
Maguire & Co v Mar City Developments
Frustration amongst creditors of struggling UK law firms continues to grow. Administrators of Challinors have concluded that the partnership's unsecured creditors, owed approximately £7.1m, are likely to receive nothing. Meanwhile the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has advised 141 firms that they must prepare to shut-down following their failure to obtain professional indemnity cover. These firms are currently in the middle of a 60 day cessation period during which they may remain in business, but cannot accept any new instructions. While some have blamed the
The Court of Appeal gave judgment today (15 November 2013) in favour of licensed insolvency practitioner Andrew Hosking (D), unanimously upholding a strike out judgment of Peter Smith J made on 22 February 2013.
Stephen Hunt, liquidator of Ovenden Colbert Printers Limited (“OCP”), had sued D and 8 other defendants. His claim against D was brought pursuant to sections 238 and 241 Insolvency Act 1986. He alleged that D had received or benefited from payments made by OCP which constituted transactions at an undervalue.