A recent English High Court decision has held that prospective Administrators do not need to look behind the directors’ motives in appointing them; they need to look ahead as to what might happen in the administration and consider whether the statutory purpose of the administration can be achieved.

In common with most of the population, now is the key time for making those resolutions for 2015. Suggestions appear below!

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 summer months are upon us, and developments in insolvency law and practice continue apace. Since our Spring issue the courts have pronounced in a number of interesting cases. At the time of writing, the World Cup is underway – it would perhaps be remiss not to have some football flavour in this article, and so some observations on the plight of Portsmouth FC are appropriate (though saved till the end).

Successive notices of intention to appoint administrators: more than one moratorium?

At the end of February 2008 new rules were introduced aimed at tightening the existing measures to combat illegal working, by making it more difficult for people to exceed any permission granted to stay in Great Britain or continue working in breach of the conditions imposed on them by the immigration authorities and to make it easier for employers to ascertain whether it is legal for them to engage any prospective employee.

Prevention of illegal working

Only a month ago we were singing the praises of the CVA and calling them the saviour of the high street following the creditors’ approval of the BHS CVA. (See our earlier blog Move over Mary Portas, CVA’s are the real saviour of the High Street).

Unless you have been living in a cave, you will have heard the very disappointing news that the current exemption to the Jackson reforms for insolvency claims under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (“LASPO”) will cease as of 1 April 2016.

If you are to avail yourself of the benefits of the Jackson exemption, which was one of the few pieces of legislation that levelled out the playing field between Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) and rogue directors – then read on.

In March 2014 the European Commission issued a Recommendation considering a new approach to business failure and insolvency, targeting efficient restructuring of viable enterprises in financial difficulty and a second chance for honest entrepreneurs.

In the United Kingdom, the Pension Protection Fund (“PPF”) is the safety net for the employee members of a defined benefit pension plan or scheme.  The PPF compensates members when an employer has not and cannot put sufficient assets in the pension scheme to meet its obligations to member employees and the employer has suffered a “qualifying insolvency event”.

The recent English High Court decision in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch)has conflicted with the earlier decision in Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWCA Civ. 799 and leaves the law unclear as to whether a debtor’s pension forms part of their bankruptcy estate.

A trustee in bankruptcy’s entitlement to seek an income payments order (“IPO”) in respect of a bankrupt’s income is governed by section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”). Under section 310(7) of the IA the income of a bankrupt: