To start, let me introduce some familiar characters. First, an impecunious claimant who has the benefit of after the event (ATE) insurance, but the disadvantage of an incompetent solicitor. Second, a successful defendant with the benefit of a costs order and a final costs certificate, but the disadvantage of a slippery ATE insurer who has avoided the claimant’s ATE policy because of failures by the aforesaid incompetent solicitor. Different ways around this problem have been tried, and generally failed.

In the first case of its kind, the High Court in England has prevented a shareholder from splitting its shareholding in an attempt to defeat the approval of a scheme of arrangement under section 895 of the Companies Act 2006 (Scheme) by way of manipulation of legislative requirements in relation to Schemes which require approval by a majority in number representing 75% in value of the voting class of shareholders.

(1) SIMON ROBERT THOMAS (2) ARRON KENDALL v (1) FROGMORE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS GP1 LTD (2) LINDA NICHOL (3) CHARLES SPARY (4) STUART JENKIN (5) NATIONWIDE BUILDING SOCIETY : (1) FROGMORE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS GP1 LTD (2) LINDA NICOL (3) CHARLES SPARY (4) STUART JENKIN v (1) SIMON ROBERT THOMAS (2) ARRON KENDALL (3) NATIONWIDE BUILDING SOCIETY sub noms (1) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (KNOWLE) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) (2) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (ELLESMERE PORT) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) (3) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (BELLE VALE) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2017] EWHC 25 (Ch)

Dickinson v NAL (Realisations) Staffordshire Ltd is a useful case on how directors’ duties are looked at following a formal insolvency and ways in which an office holder can challenge transactions if there is evidence of wrongdoing or a concerted strategy to frustrate creditors’ recourse to a Company’s asset base which would ordinarily be available to them in an insolvency, subject of course to valid security and/or third party rights.

The modernisation of the Scottish Insolvency Rules has been eagerly awaited for some time. In April 2017, England & Wales will see the newly transformed insolvency legislation take full effect with the introduction of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. These new rules do not, however, impact on Scotland.

On 1st April 2016, the exemption for insolvency litigation from the changes brought about by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), was withdrawn. Prior to this, an Insolvency Practitioner (IP) could pursue action against a “rogue” director or debtor, on behalf of the creditors of an insolvent business/individual, by instructing a solicitor on a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA), and protect themselves against adverse costs by taking out After The Event insurance (ATE).

Key Points

• Reaffirms the importance of considering whether an applicant’s position would be improved by the making a vesting order

• Useful guidance on the extent of the court’s powers when granting a vesting order.

The Facts

Trustees’ Application

Trustees in bankruptcy issued an application for a declaration that a property owned by a company (the Property) was in fact owned by the bankrupt. The trustees contended that the Property had been bought from the sale proceeds of a property owned by the bankrupt’s father, but expressly held on trust for the bankrupt (the Trust Property).

The Facts

In an important Court of Appeal (CoA) decision handed down on 1 March 2017, the CoA has clarified the position for banks, lenders and insolvency practitioners regarding realisation of assets after certificates of completion have been issued in individual voluntary arrangements (IVAs).

The decision in Green -v- Wright was handed down in the Court of Appeal on 1 March 2017 and seeks to address the following issues:

• Whether a trust created in an individual voluntary agreement (IVA) terminates on completion.
• What is the definition of a ‘creditor’ for the purposes of an IVA?
• What is the effect of a certificate of completion?

Does a trust terminate?