Registrar Baister overturned the adjudicator's decision in refusing to grant a Bankruptcy Order where the debtors COMI was an issue.

Mr Budniok, a German citizen who had recently moved to London, applied online for a Bankruptcy Order in England. After several requests for further information, the adjudicator was not satisfied Mr Budniok's centre of main interests ("COMI") was in England and as such refused the application. Mr Budniok appealed.

It is an unfortunate reality that many farming businesses are operating at their limits and are struggling financially. There are several aspects of the insolvency law that should be borne in mind should you run your farm through a limited company that begins to face financial difficulty.

Directors' Duties

Directors' duties under the Companies Act:

The Companies Court has set out the requirements necessary to serve out of the jurisdiction under the Practice Direction on Insolvency Proceedings.

This recent Court of Appeal decision has provided clarity on the justification for the rules against bringing claims for reflective loss and confirmed that both unsecured creditors and shareholders are similarly barred from bringing such claims.

Background

The Facts

Mr Reynard, a bankrupt, made an claim against his Trustee, Mr Fox. Mr Reynard acted in person at all times and issued proceedings at the county court money claims centre for breach of contract and negligence, asserting that his Trustee had failed to assess potential claims properly and had incorrectly valued the claims, and therefore had failed to take action.

The fallout from Carillion's collapse in January continues to play out as it transpired this week that the company had delayed payments to subcontractors by up to 120 days. Carillion allegedly used tactics such as faulting invoices and finding minor problems with work undertaken in order to delay payment.

The Facts

Norton Aluminium Ltd (NAL) went into Administration following a partially successful nuisance claim against it and subsequently went into Liquidation. Mr Dickinson was the managing director and controlling shareholder and brought a claim to recover a secured loan made by him to NAL. The Liquidators counterclaimed to set aside or recover compensation for various transactions, including a share buyback from Mr Dickinson and connected parties by NAL for £2.5 million and the sale of a subsidiary to Mr Dickinson for £1.

Pearson v. Primeo Fund (Cayman Islands) [2017] UKPC 19

The Privy Council sitting as the final court of appeal for the Cayman Islands recently considered a case concerning prioritisation in a Liquidation between feeder hedge funds where the investment medium was redeemable shares.

Background

Rules 18.15 to 18.38 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 deals with remuneration principles, fixing of remuneration, challenges by creditors and applications to Court by officeholders in relation to their remuneration placing all the rules surrounding remuneration in one place as opposed to dotted around the various procedures in the old rules.

Principles

Rule 18.16 sets out the general principles as to how administrators, liquidators and trustees can be remunerated and is largely unchanged from the old rules.

The English Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal that a claim could be pursued in the English courts whilst the defendant was also subject to winding-up proceedings under Icelandic insolvency law.

This case concerns a Court of Appeal hearing following the collapse of the large Icelandic bank, Kaupthing Bank HF ("Kaupthing"), in 2008. Kaupthing was subject to a moratorium order made by the Icelandic courts in 2008 and a winding-up order in November 2010.