We have become used to a regular stream of decisions in which the courts are prepared to grant administration or winding up orders in respect of overseas companies which have COMI or an establishment in the UK. The decision inRe Buccament Bay Limited and another [2014] EWCH 3130 is a rare exception in which the court has refused to exercise its discretion.

The background

In June 2014, the new insolvency complaints gateway celebrated its first birthday. This was followed by a report assessing its performance against a number of rather challenging ambitions. We analyse the report’s findings and the effect of the gateway to date on consumers, insolvency practitioners and their insurers.

Background

Introduction to CVAs

A company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) is a tool available to a company in financial difficulty to restructure its debts. In contrast to other insolvency procedures, the directors remain in control of the business which continues to operate broadly as normal, subject to the supervision of an insolvency practitioner (“the Supervisor”).

Singularis Holdings Limited v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2014] UKPC 36

PricewaterhouseCoopers v Saad Investments Company Limited [2014] UKPC 35

The Privy Council gives credence to the concept of “modified universalism” (being the court’s common law power to assist foreign winding up proceedings) and notes some of the circumstances which would permit a “stranger” to a winding up order the opportunity to challenge that order.

The facts:

Key Points

• Paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("Paragraph 13") permits a liquidator to do all acts "necessary" for the winding up and distribution of property.
• The decision as to what action is "necessary" is one for the liquidators (albeit subject to sanction).
• Nothing in FSMA 2000 prevented the investors from assigning their claims against the former operators..

The facts

Key Point

The Court has given guidance on when a company in administration has possession of third party assets allowing an administrator to apply for an order allowing him to sell them.

The Facts

The administrators of a company applied to Court under paragraphs 72 and 68 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 for permission to sell assets located on its freehold premises pursuant to a chattel hire contract with a group company (the "Assets").

The Decision

The recent case of Husky Group Ltd  (“Husky”) underlines the importance of following your lawyer’s advice and not pursuing the defense of the indefensible.

Key Points 

• Phones 4U went into administration in September 2014.
• Technology companies in the US have also faced a difficult market.
• Phones 4U’s complicated financing structure contributed to its downfall, as did its reliance on one or two key suppliers.
• The Protection of Essential Supplies Order will have considerable ramifications for tech suppliers when it comes into force.

PHONES 4U COLLAPSE: PART 1

The Commission has published its rating system and an advice note to operators on the requirements to segregate customer funds and disclose to customers the level of protection offered in the event of insolvency.

This ratings category must be included in operator’s terms and conditions by 31 December 2014.

Anyone using arbitration clauses should note the Court of Appeal decision made on Monday 8 December, to the effect that a winding up petition is not automatically stayed because the petition debt arises from a contract containing a mandatory arbitration clause.

This important  development could  assist creditors  enforcing strong  claims against  debtors incorporated in many offshore financial centres as well as in England.