Summary: The Insolvency Rules 2016 will come into force on 6 April 2017. This article highlights some of the main areas of change.

The long awaited Insolvency Rules 2016 (the “2016 Rules”) were laid before Parliament on 25 October 2016, and will come into force on 6 April 2017. The Insolvency Rules 1986 (the “1986 Rules”) and all amending legislation will be repealed. The 2016 Rules aim to:

RBS announced last month that SME customers will automatically be entitled to a refund of the fees that they were charged whilst being managed by the Bank’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG) between 2008 and 2013 following a review by the FCA.

This offer follows on from the payments RBS has made in recent years for the mis-selling of PPI and interest rate swap products which has resulted in £1.8 billion of redress costs.

This article examines possible consequences for SMEs that were in GRG during the relevant period which now are, or have been, in an insolvency procedure.

New Rules for Imposing Personal Liability on Directors of Insolvent Companies

When a company enters into an insolvency process, a director may be made personally liable for an insolvent company’s debts on a few limited bases under the Insolvency Act 1986, the most common of which are:

1. wrongful trading: if the director knew or ought to have known that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation and he did not take every step necessary with a view to minimising the loss to creditors;

Savers who become bankrupt but have not yet drawn their pensions will not have to hand them to creditors after a ruling of the Court of Appeal put an end to fears that pension pots were at risk.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s ruling on Horton v Henry, originally heard in 2014, settling legal difficulties arising from a conflicting judgment of Raithatha v Williamson (2012); and the introduction of the pension freedoms.

Summary

Court of Appeal has confirmed that a bankrupt cannot be compelled to draw down pension rights for the benefit of creditors.

Facts

Following the supportive High Court decision in the case of Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 900 (Ch), the trustee in bankruptcy in this case applied for an order compelling a discharged bankrupt to draw down his pension rights for the benefit of his creditors.

Farm businesses often borrow from a variety of sources simultaneously, providing security through mortgages or charges over land and agricultural charges over other farm assets. What farmers may not realise, however, is how priority between lenders works to distribute funds realised, if the business gets into financial difficulties and the assets are sold.

McLean decision

With the aim of improving transparency around ownership and control of companies, all UK unquoted and limited liability partnerships are required to maintain new registers of People with Significant Control (PSC). The details should be recorded in the company’s own PSC register and are to be filed at Companies House.

Anyone who satisfies at least one of the following conditions:

The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 came into force yesterday, 30 November 2016, together with other consequential amendments and changes to the Court Rules which relate to bankruptcy in Scotland.

When this topic was last considered two years ago, there was a real danger of pension rights (previously thought of as sacrosanct) being within the reach of trustees in bankruptcy by way of an income payments order (IPO). There were also two conflicting first instance decisions in play. The issue? Whether a pension entitlement capable of drawdown by election, but not yet in payment, can fall within the definition of income in section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86), and so be the potential subject of an IPO.

Summary

This is the latest case in the long running saga of attempts to make Mr Maud bankrupt.

Facts

The saga centres around a high value property complex in Spain. Mr Maud and objecting creditors contended on his appeal against a bankruptcy order made by the Registrar against him that the reason why the petitioners sought a bankruptcy order was for the ulterior motive of taking control of the property structure and that the order should be overturned.