In the recent case of Cherkasov & others v Olegovich [2017] EWHC 756 (Ch) the English courts considered the public policy exception set out in Article 6 Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) and whether security for costs could be ordered against the official receiver of a Russian company (who had obtained recognition in England under CIBR) when he applied for an order for the production of evidence by some of the former managers of a Russian company under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA).

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?

Are funds subject to an IVA if they are received by a debtor after a certificate of completion has been issued by the supervisor?

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.