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 -
- Correspondence;
- Electronic Voting; or
- 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.
In the recent case of South Coast Construction v Iverson Road Limited [2017] EWHC 61 (TCC), South Coast Construction ("South Coast") had obtained an adjudicator’s decision against the employer, Iverson Road Limited (“Iverson Road”), in a sum approaching £900,000. Iverson Road refused to pay the award so South Coast commenced enforcement proceedings in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC).
Summary
Clarification on when the court should lift the administration moratorium in respect of litigation.
The Facts
Introduction
Amit has recently acted for an IP whose office is one of the largest appointment takers in the country. He appeared for the respondent at several hearings on an application to review a BTO.
Background
The out-going officeholder had his licence revoked by the IPA for misappropriation of monies, running to six figures, from numerous estates. This resulted in a BTO, which was granted by the Court on paper.
The Facts
The applicants, who had successfully appealed the rejection of their proof of debt by the liquidator of Burnden Group Limited, sought an order that the liquidator pay their costs of the appeal personally in circumstances where the relevant company had no assets and their costs exceeded £290,000 (including VAT).
The Decision