Should an administrator’s appointment be terminated where the motives of the appointor are improper but the statutory purpose of the administration can still be properly achieved?

In an appeal against an order refusing a worldwide freezing order on the basis that the applicant could not show assets somewhere in the world, Lord Justice Longmore has confirmed that it is not enough for an applicant to assert that the respondent was apparently wealthy and must have assets somewhere.

In the case of Newwatch Ltd v Bennett, the court ruled that After The Event insurance (ATE) policies could not be used as adequate security for costs by the claimant companies who were based in Denmark and Jersey.

The court has no jurisdiction to direct a bankrupt to waive privilege in any document, the High Court has ruled (Leeds v Lemos [2017] EWHC 1825 (Ch)).

The High Court also confirmed that legal professional privilege is not the property of a bankrupt for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986 and does not automatically pass to their trustee. The Court of Appeal's recent judgment in Avonwick v Shlosberg [2017] EWCA Civ 1138 was considered and applied.

Less than a year after it came into effect on 1 August 2016, the first judgment in relation to the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the TP Act 2010) has been handed down in the case of BAE Systems Pension Fund (Trustees) Limited (the Pension Fund) v Bowmer and Kirkland Limited and others (B&K).

As of 1st October 2017, debt recovery and collections in both the commercial and consumer world is going to see a big change with the introduction of the debt recovery Pre-Action Protocol (‘PAP’).

There has been a previous pre-action protocol, introduced in 2014, which was in many ways accepted as a sensible approach to collection of all debts.

The English Supreme Court has considered various new categories of creditor claims against a company with unlimited liability in administration where, unusually, there was enough money to pay all creditors and a surplus existed.

In proceedings commonly referred to as the Waterfall I litigation, the Supreme Court considered issues relating to the distribution of funds from the estate of Lehman Brothers International Europe (in administration) (LBIE), in circumstances where there was a surplus of assets amounting to approximately £8 billion.

Winding up petition struck out as an abuse of process where the court was not satisfied that the petitioner was a creditor.

Can a company file a notice of intention to appoint an administrator (NOI) if administration is just one of a number of potential options being explored for rescuing the company?

98% of the liabilities of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (“LBIE”) were denominated in non-sterling currencies. The fall in sterling after LBIE entered administration resulted in significant paper losses for creditors, which they sought to recover from the LBIE estate. The recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in Waterfall I refused to recognize such claims.*