In our June seminars we discussed the Pre-Pack Pool and the proposed changes to SIP 16. The revision was recommended by Teresa Graham as part of her independent review into pre-packs in June 2014, and the new SIP 16 was introduced on 2 November 2015 to coincide with the launch of the Pre-Pack Pool.

Key provisions of the revised SIP 16, which remains virtually unchanged from the draft issued in January this year, include:

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 costs of presenting a bankruptcy or winding up petition in the UK have increased from 16 November 2015, under the Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2015. The Official Receiver's deposit, which is paid to the Insolvency Service to cover a proportion of the OR's fees in the event a Bankruptcy Order or Winding Up Order is made, will rise for creditors' bankruptcy petitions from £750 to £825 and for compulsory winding up petitions from £1,250 to £1,350. The deposit will remain unchanged for debtor's own bankruptcy petitions.

In Bellis v Challinor [2015] EWCA Civ 59 and Gore v Mishcon de Reya [2015] EWHC 164 (Ch) the question arose whether monies transferred to a solicitors’ client account were held on trust for the solicitors’ client or on a Quistclose trust for the transferor. Both decisions have provided clarity as to when a Quistclose trust will be found to exist and the nature of the construction exercise the court will undertake.

Section 236 Insolvency Act ("IA") 1986 enables the Court power to summon persons with information about the affairs of a company to appear before it and / or to produce documents. In our August bulletin we considered the decision of the English High Court in Re MF Global [2015] EWHC 2319 when it was held that s236 does not have extra-territorial effect. However, having looked at the issue again in Official Receiver v Norriss [2015] EWHC 2697, the High Court has departed from the position in Re MF Global.

This article considers the cost consequences following service of a statutory demand in two scenarios:

Introduction:

The Government has launched a new consultation on a number of technical and regulatory changes affecting pensions legislation. One of the proposed changes is to amend the entry rules in relation to the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). The consultation follows on from the recent Supreme Court decision in Olympic Airlines and the introduction of specific legislation to ensure the beneficiaries of that particular scheme received protection in circumstances where the entry rules otherwise excluded them.

charlesrussellspeechlys.com Charles Russell Speechlys LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales, registered number OC311850, and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Charles Russell Speechlys LLP is also licensed by the Qatar Financial Centre Authority in respect of its branch office in Doha. Any reference to a partner in relation to Charles Russell Speechlys LLP is to a member of Charles Russell Speechlys LLP or an employee with equivalent standing and qualifications.

Here the Court of Appeal granted an injunction which restrained a building contractor (Harbour View) from presenting a winding-up petition, overturning the high court's decision at first instance.  Harbour View had been engaged under two separate contracts based on a JCT Intermediate WCD (2011) to carry out works at two separate sites.  The employer (Wilson) failed to pay against two interim certificates (August 2013 and September 2013), leaving a sum of over GBP 1.6 million owing.

The High Court has recently considered whether directors were in breach of their duties after a company entered insolvency. Specifically, the Court considered whether it could exercise its discretion in accordance with section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, whereby the Court can order summary judgment against an officer of the company who has misapplied, retained or become accountable for money or property of the company, or been guilty of any misfeasance or breach of fiduciary or other duty in relation to the company.

The Claim