In the recent case of Cherkasov & others v Olegovich [2017] EWHC 756 (Ch) the English courts considered the public policy exception set out in Article 6 Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) and whether security for costs could be ordered against the official receiver of a Russian company (who had obtained recognition in England under CIBR) when he applied for an order for the production of evidence by some of the former managers of a Russian company under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA).

Pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 a company's liquidator can recover any of the company's property that is transferred after the date on which a winding up petition is issued. This is because s.127 makes any disposition of property (such as land, money and goods) in the period after issue of a winding up petition void.

Key points

• A practical approach was adopted by the court in respect of deadlines for submitting administration expense claims that were otherwise holding up the making of distributions to unsecured creditors.
• In the absence of a suitable statutory mechanism, the court allowed for a cut-off date by which expense claims must be submitted.

The administrators of 18 of the Nortel companies applied to court for directions on how to deal with potential claims for administration expenses.

We're now at the halfway mark of Pensions in 30 Podcasts and episode 15 provides an overview of the Pensions Protection Fund (PPF). We look at how a scheme qualifies for entry into the PPF, funding and compensation.

Click here to listen to the podcast. 

Key Points

Summary

Liquidators of a company pursued proceedings against the former administrators/liquidators of the company (Messrs White and Wood) alleging negligent and deliberate/dishonest overcharging of fees.

The facts

This month we consider the court's refusal to imply an obligation into a loan agreement that a lender should take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security; the court's view on the failure to heed alarm bells in relation to potential undue influence; and more cases and issues affecting the industry.

No implied term in a loan agreement that creditor should take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security

An estate is deemed to be bankrupt when the total value of its debts and liabilities (including conditional and future liabilities) is greater than the total value of its assets. A bankrupt estate is often a very daunting prospect for the executors or administrators (the PRs). The task of administering such an estate is challenging and often fraught with pitfalls. What should the PRs look out for?

If I was to provide some top tips for those potentially faced with insolvent estates, I would say the following are my top 3:

Unlike in personal insolvency, the estate is bankrupt when its liabilities are greater than assets. There is no need for an order declaring an estate bankrupt. Equally, there is, therefore, no specific, different Grant appointing those responsible for administering an insolvent estate. A bankrupt estate may be administered by its appointed executor or administrator (PR), applying insolvency rules in the administration process.

Re Diffraction Diamonds DMCC [2017] EWHC 1368 (Ch)

This case deals with the English Court’s jurisdiction to wind up foreign companies, on the grounds of public interest. While it does not create new law, it is a helpful review of the authorities, particularly Re Titan International Inc [1998] 1 BVLC 102 (“Titan”).

Case Facts

The High Court confirmed that it is generally not appropriate to present a winding up petition to recover sums due under a construction contract, particularly where those sums are disputed or there is a legitimate cross claim.