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

Key points

Lenders and proposed administrators should ensure that permission is in place where permission of prior charge holders is required for the grant of new security.

The facts

Key points

Creditors petitioning for bankruptcy must carefully consider offers to settle debts and make a reasonable decision based on the circumstances.

The facts

A bankrupt sought permission to appeal his bankruptcy order on the basis that the Deputy District Judge incorrectly held that the petitioning creditor did not act unreasonably in rejecting the bankrupt’s offer to compound the debt and, therefore, ought to have dismissed the petition pursuant to Section 271(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The decision

The Copenhagen Reinsurance Company (CopRe) asked the UK High Court to make an Order sanctioning the intra-group transfer of the whole of its (re)insurance business to the Marlon Insurance Company (Marlon). Each of CopRe and Marlon wrote US excess and surplus lines insurance, and each of them maintained an excess and surplus lines trust fund in New York. The purpose of the transfer was to simplify the structure of the Enstar group. If the transfer was sanctioned, CopRe would be dissolved without winding up.

When any industry faces challenging times, thoughts turn to what might happen to those companies which are unable to maintain their solvency and service their existing debt.

Padwick Properties Limited v Punj Lloyd Limited [2016] EWHC 502 (Ch)

FACTS

This case concerned a property in Stockport let at an annual rent of £784,268, where Padwick was landlord to a company named SCL. The defendant had guaranteed SCL's performance of its obligations.

The latest iteration of the Sun Capital litigation has confirmed once again what many restructuring professionals have known for a long time - that pension liabilities have a nasty habit of kicking investors where it hurts, often when least expected. Our recent blog explains the decision and provides some insights on the case.

The serious consequences of an adjudication of bankruptcy against an individual has long justified the strict requirement that bankruptcy petitions be personally served. Rule 6.14 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 requires as much, and says that ‘service shall be effected by delivering to [the debtor] a sealed copy of the petition’. But what constitutes delivery where the debtor declines to accept the petition from the process server?

The applicant applied to strike out a winding up petition that had been presented against it. The parties had entered into two construction contracts under which the applicant had subcontracted the fabrication and erection of steelworks to the respondent in relation to two separate sites. The contracts failed to provide an adequate mechanism for payment such that the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (HGCRA 1996) and the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (as amended) applied.

Picard, a trustee in bankruptcy, launched proceedings under the anti-avoidance provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code against Vizcaya, a BVI investment fund which had invested approximately $330m with Bernard Madoff via his New York firm. Prior to his fraud being discovered in late 2008, Vizcaya had been repaid $180m.Picard obtained a judgment against Vizcaya and its shareholders in the New York Bankruptcy Court. The judgment against Vizcaya was for $180m, $74m of which had been transferred to its Gibraltar holdings.