The Facts

Key points

• Payments under a remuneration scheme did not constitute dividends, as the formal decision to categorise them as such was taken by an accountant at the end of the year.

• Assignments of claims should expressly include all claims which can be made under that assignment in order for title to pass.

The facts

The professional indemnity insurer of an insolvent independent financial adviser (Target) successfully relied on an insolvency exclusion in the policy to deny liability to third party (former) clients of Target1.

In 2005 Target had advised Mr. and Mrs. Crowden to invest £200,000 in a “Secure Income Bond” issued by SLS Capital SA in Luxembourg and Keydata Investment Ltd.2 SLS went into liquidation in 2009.

There are various ways misconduct can be reported in respect of companies and individuals. Establishing which authority has the power to conduct investigations of wrongdoing depends to a certain extent on the status of the companies and individuals.

The Court of Session has found that the EU Regulations to found jurisdiction for Insolvency proceedings based on COMI do not apply in a purely UK matter.

Bank Leumi (UK) plc (The bank) lodged a petition to make an Administration Order in respect of Screw Conveyor Limited (the company). While the company's registered office was in Birmingham, the bank stated in its petition that the company's centre of main interest (COMI) was in Scotland.

Following our previous article about farms facing insolvency as a limited company, we will now discuss the implications of insolvency on a sole trader or partnership.

Farmers running their business as a sole trader could face personal bankruptcy in the event the business faces financial difficulty.

High Court holds that an Insolvency Exclusion applies in respect of a claim under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (“1930 Act”) and awards summary judgment accordingly but declines to provide much-needed guidance on insurers’ liability in the case of claims partially settled by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (“FSCS”).

The Insolvency Service has recently published a rather extreme example of a director’s failed attempt to circumvent disqualification[1].

On 25 October 2017, the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB) published its insolvency statistics for the latest quarter, July to September 2017.

In this case, the claimant brought proceedings against the first defendant claiming damages for breach of a settlement agreement, and an order under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for the setting aside of the sale of a vessel. It was alleged that the sale of the vessel was a sham designed to put the first defendant’s assets out of the reach of the claimant. The latter claim was also brought against two other defendants, being the purchaser and sub-purchaser of the vessel.