Key Point

The Court of Appeal has overturned a first instance decision (discussed in our April 2014 Update) that the Companies Court should not normally make an order upon a winding up petition based on tax assessments that are under appeal.

The Facts

Key point

Pensions in payment were within the ambit of section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act"), but pensions not in payment were not payments to which a bankrupt was “entitled” as the right to draw had not been excerised. The court therefore refused to make an income payments order ("IPO").

The Facts

In a recent decision, the High Court held that legal advice taken in relation to certain transactions was not protected by privilege, as there was prima facie evidence that the purpose of the advice was to structure the transactions in a way that avoided the client’s liability to pay local authority care charges and/or as a transaction defrauding creditors: London Borough of Brent v Kane [2014] EWHC 4564 (Ch).

4 February 2015 saw Copenship A/S, a significant charterer of bulk vessels, and its subsidiary Copenship Bunkers A/S, file for bankruptcy in the Copenhagen Maritime and Commercial Court.

The bankruptcy of Copenship marks the latest in a series of recent high-profile shipping insolvencies, and with no significant improvement to the bulk market in sight there may well be more to come.

The Financial Times has reported that Towergate, a loss making insurance broker with debts of up to £1bn, may be about to breach the terms of its loans. According to these reports, a paymentis due to Towergate’s secured creditors on Monday, 2nd February 2015, and another is due to its unsecured creditors two weeks later. These payments are reported to be worth about £30m. Towergate’s board is said to be weighing up rival restructuring bids this weekend, in an effort to save the business.

Protecting your business from your customer’s insolvency

In the second article in our series on risk and opportunity in the fashion retail sector, Rob Russell and Peter Manley assess one of the most prominent areas of risk for suppliers − the insolvency of a trade customer/ retailer.

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. 

The recent English High Court decision in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch)has conflicted with the earlier decision in Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWCA Civ. 799 and leaves the law unclear as to whether a debtor’s pension forms part of their bankruptcy estate.

A trustee in bankruptcy’s entitlement to seek an income payments order (“IPO”) in respect of a bankrupt’s income is governed by section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”). Under section 310(7) of the IA the income of a bankrupt:

Is a pension pot beyond the reach of a trustee in bankruptcy? Conflicting High Court decisions reviewed below raise an interesting conflict between practical policy and strict technical interpretation

In both cases, the question was whether a trustee in bankruptcy can obtain an Income Payments Order (IPO) in respect of pension entitlements under a personal pension plan, where no election to draw the pension had been made prior to the Bankruptcy Order.