Summary

The insolvency legislation contains an unusual provision pursuant to section 375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 enabling the court to review its own decision. The issue in this case was whether the High Court could review its own decision where that decision was an appeal of a bankruptcy order made by a District Judge in the County Court.

The Facts

The Facts

On 12 September 2012, the joint liquidators of a company brought claims for wrongful trading against its former directors, arguing that they knew (or ought to have concluded) before the date it entered liquidation that the company could not avoid insolvent liquidation. At first instance, Registrar Jones held that the directors were liable for wrongful trading and should pay compensation of £35,000. The directors appealed this decision.

The Decision

Key Points

• Costs incurred in preparing to comply with disclosure orders not payable by liquidators

• Protection for wasted costs should have been sought earlier in the proceedings

The Facts

The Facts

An administrator was appointed over a company out of court and the administration extended on a handful of occasions. The administrator was then replaced by block transfer, but the administration subsequently expired before it was concluded.

The new administrator therefore applied for a new administration order to apply retrospectively from the date of expiry of the old order.

Summary

The court was prepared to provide for immediate release of administrators from office and to wind up a company without presentation of a petition.

The Facts

Administrators applied to court for their release, the winding up of the company and their appointment as liquidators.

The company’s remaining asset was a leasehold interest with an ultimate landlord, the immediate landlord having surrendered its interest.

Summary

The case provides guidance for liquidators as to the appropriate exercise to conduct when deciding whether the threshold of 25% in value of creditor claims has been reached in support of a request for a creditors’ meeting under s 171.

Key point

• A liquidator is not required to apply a ‘strict proof’ test to a creditor’s claim at the requisition stage of a creditors meeting.

The facts

In November 2014, the company entered into a creditor’s voluntary liquidation.

The Investment Bank Special Administration Regime (SAR) was introduced in 2011 in response to difficulties faced in the Lehman Brothers administration. Following a review of the regime by Peter Bloxham in 2014, and a Government consultation in 2016, the Treasury has introduced draft regulations to improve the regime - The Investment Bank (Amendment of Definition) and Special Administration (Amendment) Regulations 2017.

In two months' time the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 will come into force (with effect from 6 April 2017). This date has been long in the making the first draft of the new rules was published in September 2013.

The new rules are not intended to change the law. Their main aim is to consolidate provisions in order to reduce repetition, ensure that there is a more logical structure and modernise and simplify the language (including gender neutral drafting).

This briefing highlights a few of the key changes.

In the recent case of SCI Senior Home (in Administration) v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down judgment on the question of whether a right in rem created under national law should be considered a "right in rem" for the purposes of Article 5 of the Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the "Insolvency Regulation").

Background

In the recent case of Gillan v HEC Enterprises Ltd (in administration) and Ors [2016] EWHC 3179 (Ch), the High Court considered (1) in what circumstances administrators can recover costs and expenses incurred in dealing with trust property and (2) how the administrators’ costs in applying for a Berkeley Applegate order and other litigation were to be dealt with.

Background