The Government has announced that from October 2015 it plans to increase the minimum threshold for creditors’ bankruptcy petitions from £750 to £5,000 and the maximum level of debt in respect of which a Debt Relief Order (“DRO”) can be obtained from £15,000 to £20,000.
The PPF’s final levy rules for 2015/16 published at the end of last year largely confirmed the consultation drafts but included changes in some details.
We recap on what was known before the final rules came out. Then we look at the changes in the final rules.
Changes already confirmed
Insolvency scoring
Pre-packs are a valuable business rescue tool but have often been criticised by creditors because they enable an administrator to conclude a sale without involving them. The term ‘pre-packaged sale’ refers to an arrangement under which the sale of all or part of the company’s business or assets is negotiated with a purchaser prior to the appointment of an administrator and the administrator effects the sale immediately on, or shortly after, appointment.
Two recent decisions of the UK courts concern UK liquidation and administration of foreign companies
Refusal to Wind-Up Foreign Companies: Re Buccament Bay Limited [2014] EWHC 3130 (Ch)
The High Court of England and Wales may refuse to exercise its discretion to wind up companies incorporated abroad where there would be little likelihood of the petitioners deriving benefit from the winding-up.
Declining to follow a 2012 decision, the High Court has ruled that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which he was entitled within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986, and so did not form part of the bankruptcy estate.
Background
Earlier this month, the government published debtor-friendly reforms to the personal insolvency regime, which it is proposed will come into effect from 1 October 2015.
The changes mean that a creditor cannot petition for a debtor’s bankruptcy unless they are owed at least £5,000. This is a considerable increase from the current threshold of £750 which has been in place since 1986.
Nigel Barnett talks about bribes and other proprietary rights in insolvencies.
Introduction
For over 150 years, it has been a principle of English law that if an agent takes a bribe or a secret commission, he is liable to account to his principal for the amount received. However, there has been conflicting authority and academic debate as to whether the principal merely has a personal claim against the agent or whether he can assert a proprietary claim to the monies received and any profits made therefrom.
The Court of Appeal held that, while section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 did not apply to require the stay of a winding-up petition, it would be appropriate to dismiss or stay a petition pending resolution of a dispute over the petition debt where such dispute was within the scope of an arbitration agreement.
The news that USC has taken steps to commence an insolvency process is further proof (if proof were needed) that despite what TS Elliot may have claimed, January really is the cruellest month.
In our recent article of 4 November 2014 we referred to a new case where the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson would be reconsidered.
On 17 December 2014 the High Court handed down judgment in the case of Horton v Henry. The decision has been highly anticipated.