This article was first published in The Gazette, and the original article can be found online here.

The implementation of the Insolvency Rules 2016 has introduced a number of changes to the procedures in insolvency regimes.

The rules relating to income payment orders ("IPO") and income payment agreements ("IPA") are largely unchanged. The time periods dictated in the old rules for IPOs and IPAs remain the same, however there are some added requirements in the new rules, particularly in relation to the contents of notices and orders.

Rule 10.109 Application for income payments order (section 310)

[…]

(4) the notice to the bankrupt must be authenticated and dated by the trustee.

Rule 10.110 Order for income payments order

Disclaimer - Rules 19.1 - 19.11

The Rules relating to Disclaimer remain largely unchanged, except for bankruptcy and liquidation being included in the same section and some minor updates to the Act. The deadlines for all actions remain unchanged.

19.8 - Application for permission to disclaim in bankruptcy (section 315(4))

The notes in this section refer to changes within the Act as amended by the Deregulation Act 2015 and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.

ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt v Directia Generala Regionala a Finantelor Publice Brasov (DGRFP) [2016] All ER (D) 110 (Nov)

The Court of Justice of the European Union ("ECJ") has handed down a notable judgment in the case of ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt v Directia Generala Regionala a Finantelor Publice Brasov (DGRFP) [2016] All ER (D) 110 (Nov), ruling that domestic laws governing forfeiture of a claim in insolvency proceedings apply to foreign creditors too.

The English Court refused an application by Liquidators to stay English proceedings pending the outcome of similar proceedings in the US.

The Joint Liquidators of a Luxembourg company ("the Company") applied to stay English proceedings that they had brought against private equity investors ("the Defendants") until similar proceedings in the US had been resolved, or for three months to enable the Liquidators to raise finance for the litigation.

The English High Court has for the first time directly addressed the question of the extra-territorial application of s233 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Official Receiver as Liquidator of Sahaviriya Streel Industries UK Ltd sought an order to restore access to an IT system provided to the Company by its parent company in Thailand. In granting permission to the Official Receiver to serve the application out of the jurisdiction, the Court was persuaded by the reasoning in the recent cases of Jetivia and Re Paramount Airways which concerned other provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The joint liquidators of Peak Hotels & Resorts Limited ("Peak") brought an unsuccessful appeal that a legal charge held over funds paid into court ("Funds") was incapable of enforcement. The court dismissed the appeal on the basis that Peak did retain a proprietary interest over the funds.

The Facts

The case concerned an application made by the Liquidators of a BVI incorporated company, Peak Hotels and Resorts Limited ("Peak"). The application was intended to determine the effectiveness of a charge granted by Peak to Candey Limited, Peak's former solicitor.

Peak was the holding company of a joint venture vehicle that became the subject of lengthy international litigation proceedings following the breakdown of relations between the joint venture partners and shareholders. Candey acted for peak in the litigation.

Two big name high street retailers entered Administration in February: On 28 February, Toys R Us, whose financial struggles had been attracting media attention (not least from Ashfords' Restructuring & Insolvency Bulletin) since before Christmas, finally threw in the towel and appointed Administrators from Moorfields; while electrical goods firm Maplin also appointed PwC on the same day.

The Facts

The latest decision in the Shlosberg saga that has turned the issue of privilege and use of documents on its head - this time considering the practical implications of how office holders can use information they have obtained by compulsion for the purposes of their investigations.