This article was first published in the LexisNexis Corporate Rescue and Insolvency Journal (2017) 2 CRI 45.

Key Issues

Section 216 continues to apply to prohibit the re-use of a name or sufficiently similar name where oldco and newco have common directors.

The relevant rules now dealing with the exceptions are contained in new rules 22.1 - 22.7.

The three exceptions remain broadly the same but there are some key differences to note.

Exceptions to the prohibition

The insolvency service has published the latest figures for complaints against insolvency practitioners made to the Complaints Gateway during 2016. The statistics indicate that the Gateway has received a reasonably steady level of complaints since it was established in 2013 but promisingly for practitioners the Gateway does appear to be weeding out more complaints with the Gateway having rejected 29% of complaints in 2016, compared to 18% in the Gateway's first year.

The Stats

Background

Part 15 Insolvency Rules 2016 consolidates the rules in relation to notices, voting rights, exclusions and appeals introducing some much needed consistency between the different insolvency processes. Most of the changes are minor, but the new Rules also introduce two radical changes:

1. The abolition of physical meetings as the default decision making mechanism in all insolvency processes, and

2. New decision making procedures (including deemed consent which will be covered in next week's update.)

There are changes to the Act mainly designed to bring in the required changes following the abolition of physical meetings in the first instance.

Approval is now by a creditors decision making procedure namely -

1. Correspondence;
2. Electronic Voting; or
3. Virtual Meeting.

Contents of the Proposal

Any proposal must comply with the general principles set out in rule 8.2I IR2016 -

A recent challenge in the High Court by liquidators to recover assets from a director of an insolvent company has highlighted various points of company law. In particular, the court had to consider directors' authority, share buybacks, and transactions between a company and its directors.

The claimant (D) was the managing director and controlling shareholder of the defendant company (the Company). The Company at first had one other director, D's wife, and later a second (W).

The liquidator challenged three transactions:

[Note: deemed consent cannot be used to decide on remuneration, or where the Act/Rules requires a decision by a decision procedure.]

The Deemed Consent procedure is set out in sections 246ZF (corporate insolvency) and 379ZB (personal insolvency) of the Insolvency Act 1986, as inserted by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, and rule 15.7 of the Insolvency Rules 2016.

The deemed consent procedure is that relevant creditors/contributories are given notice:

The recent case of Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch) (Singularis) is an important decision affecting any institution that handles client payments, including banks. It decided that a stock broker was liable in negligence for having breached its duty of care to its customer, Singularis Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (Singularis), by paying monies out of its client account on the instruction of one of Singularis' directors and its only shareholder, Mr Al Sanea.

Background

Rules 18.15 to 18.38 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 deals with remuneration principles, fixing of remuneration, challenges by creditors and applications to Court by officeholders in relation to their remuneration placing all the rules surrounding remuneration in one place as opposed to dotted around the various procedures in the old rules.

Principles

Rule 18.16 sets out the general principles as to how administrators, liquidators and trustees can be remunerated and is largely unchanged from the old rules.