Regular readers of my blogs over the years will know that I never pass up a chance to use a musical analogy for business problems. As an insolvency lawyer with a second calling treading the boards, my legal practice and my music frequently vie for my attention: never more so than during the Christmas season.

In Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc and another (2015), the High Court declined to set aside an order under CPR Part 71 that a non-resident foreign officer of a judgment debtor provide information needed to enforce the judgment.  There is no requirement that there be "exceptional circumstances" for such an order to be made. 

Background

Application for a freezing order in support of foreign proceedings/appointment of a receiver and a power of attorney

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2015/3383.html

The applicants (based in the UAE and Georgia) sought freezing orders against the respondents in support of proceedings taking place overseas. The respondents are LLPs registered in England and Wales and owned by a Georgian national.

The High Court has upheld the pari passu principle central to English insolvency legislation when applied to a deceased’s insolvent estate and interpreting legislation stated to be “modified accordingly”. This approach clarifies that foreign currency claims and claims for interest should be calculated for voting purposes as at the date of death, rather than the date an Insolvency Administration Order (IAO) is made. HFW acted for the respondent in this case.

Introduction

The Football League has recently finalised some important changes to its insolvency policy which were approved at an AGM over the summer. These changes could have significant implications for clubs, funders, investors and potential rescuers.

Background – the Football Creditor Rule

The Football Creditor Rule

The approach of the Football League to insolvency has drawn a lot of attention in the press over recent years. Particular attention has been paid to the “Football Creditor Rule”.

The director at the heart of the Carrington Wire pension fund deficit saga has been disqualified for a period of 12 years.

Background

This month in Sharma v Top Brands Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1140 the Court of Appeal has again been asked to grapple with the question of when the illegality defence is available to defendants to actions brought by an insolvent company where the losses claimed are arguably tainted by the company's own fraudulent actions. In this instance the question for the court was whether the defence was available to a former liquidator of a company seeking to defend a claim brought against her for breach of duty under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Key Point

There is no assumption under English law that, where a company appeals against a winding-up order, it should give security for costs.

The Facts

Key Points

• Receivers only owe a duty of care to those parties who hold an interest in the equity of redemption.
• Upon the making of a bankruptcy order, the bankrupt ceases to participate in any such interest and the equity of redemption vests in the trustee in bankruptcy.

The Facts

Key Points

• An administrator may be able appeal an order restoring a company following dissolution
• The court has jurisdiction to backdate a winding up order made following restoration to the date of dissolution
• The court must exercise its discretion to do so with extreme caution

The Facts

Client Connection Limited (“Company”) was placed into administration and Ms Sharma (“A”) was appointed as administrator. Following a pre-pack sale of the business of the Company, A moved the Company to dissolution.