‘It should be noted from the outset that Snowden J’s judgment in Re Carluccio’s is not binding. There were no representative employees or interested parties during the remote video hearing so the judgment does not bind the employees or the government.’
Pump Court Chambers, 22nd April 2020
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘On the 28 March 2020, the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy announced a series of insolvency legislation reforms including a new court based restructing tool modelled on the Scheme of Arrangement and a short business moratorium to protect companies facing the prospect of insolvency as a result of the Covid-19 crisis.’
3 Hare Court, 20th April 2020
Source: www.3harecourt.com
‘In a judgment handed down on Monday 13th April 2020 in Re Carluccio’s Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch), Snowden J considered the application of the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme in administrations both as a matter of principle and in respect of the logistics and practicalities involved for office holders. Matthew Weaver considers the judgment and its implications in this briefing.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 16th April 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘The judgment Re Carluccio’s Ltd [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch) provides some much-needed clarity on the interrelation of the Furlough Scheme and the requirements of insolvency legislation. It is to be commended for its clarity and for the fact that it had to construe the workings of the Furlough Scheme in the absence of any statutory guidance as to its implementation. It is to be hoped that, when the Government comes to enact the necessary legislative measures (including perhaps amendments to Schedule B1 and IR 2016), that it does so with this judgment very firmly in mind.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 14th April 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘In a judgment handed down by Snowden J on a bank holiday on 13 April 2020 in the matter of Carluccio’s Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch), we have the first decision regarding the application of the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“the Scheme”). The Scheme allows employers to claim for 80% of an employee’s salary (up to a maximum of £2500 per month) if staff are kept on the books doing no work (furloughed) rather than dismissed as redundant.’
Parklane Plowden, 16th April 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘On 6th April 2020 the TIPD came into force. It implements a number of changes and supplements to the Practice Direction – Insolvency Proceedings July 2018. The purpose is to avoid, where possible, parties attending court in person and the likely disruption in proceedings as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.’
Park Square Barristers, 8th April 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘On Easter Monday, 13 April 2020, the High Court (Snowden J presiding) handed down its judgment in the matter of Carluccio’s Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch). To add to the Easter joy, the furlough guidance was amended on 9 April 2020 and the judgment had to embrace the amended guidance. One of the clarifying amendments on 9 April was the confirmation that employees who transfer under TUPE after 28 February 2020 may be placed, or continue, on furlough. This has practical implications in the light of this judgment.’
Littleton Chambers, 14th April 2020
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Snowden J gives urgently sought directions to administrators in respect of furlough arrangements with employees following a remote video hearing in the matter of Carluccio’s Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch).’
Exchange Chambers, 15th April 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘The High Court has rejected an application to adjourn a five-week trial of a £250m insolvency claim because of the coronavirus pandemic.’
Litigation Futures, 9th April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The directors of two care homes in the Midlands have been disqualified after they diverted council funds before abandoning elderly residents and staff, the Insolvency Services has revealed.’
Local Government Lawyer, 31st March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘When major financial institutions go to the wall the ensuing legal squabbles over the carcases often provide rich seams that can be mined to provide judicial clarification of the law for the benefit of all. The spectacular collapse of the Lehman Brothers empire is no exception and the latest chapter does not disappoint. In Lehman Brothers Australia Ltd (In Liquidation) v Macnamara & Ors (Joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration)) [2020] EWCA Civ 321, the Court of Appeal (Patten, David Richards, Newey LJJ) has provided some timely and useful clarification on the correct test for the court to apply when considering the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to control its officers within the principle of Re Cordon, Ex p. James (1873-74) LR 9 Ch App 609 or through the more specifically targeted statutory provisions for such control, as for example those in para 74 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) with regard to administrators. In the present climate induced by Coronavirus (COVID-19), any clarity that makes the necessity of going to court less likely is to be doubly welcomed.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 17th March 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The High Court ruled that it is not permissible for a notice of appointment of administrators by the directors of a company to be e-filed out of court hours. The court ruled that the defect was curable and that the appointment took effect at the time the court opened for business the next working day. This judgment adds to the growing number of conflicting cases about the validity and time of the appointment when notices are e-filed out of hours.
OUT-LAW.com, 6th March 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘In a judgment which disagreed with the recently reported decisions of Re Skeggs Beef Limited[2019] EWHC 2607 (Ch) and Re SJ Henderson and Co Ltd [2019] EWHC 2742 (Ch), HHJ Hodge QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court found:
1) Notices of Intention to Appoint Administrators (“NOI”) can be filed at any time via e-filing and take effect at the time they are filed via e-filing.
2) Directors or the Company can make out of hours appointments of Administrators by filing a Notice of Appointment (“NOA”) at any time via e-filing. The appointment will take effect at the time the documents are filed via e-filing.
3) That for the purposes of the computation of the period of 10 business days pursuant to para 28(2) of Sch.B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the first business day will be the business day after the date on which the NOI was filed – thus it is a ‘clear days’ calculation.’
Exchange Chambers, 20th February 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘This judgment is an important one. It concerned an application by the joint liquidators of Comet (formerly joint administrators) for directions permitting them not to carry out any further investigation into the validity of the fixed and floating charge held by a single purpose vehicle (“HAL”) that had been granted by Comet under a year before it collapsed into administration. The joint liquidators also sought a direction that they be permitted to transfer a further tranche of funds to HAL that had been realised in the administration.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 5th February 2020
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘It is now more than 17 years since the Enterprise Act 2002 was enacted with the laudable aim of streamlining the administration procedure, resulting in the introduction of the out-of-court administration regime set out in Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”).’
Guildhall Chambers, 2nd December 2019
Source: www.guildhallchambers.co.uk
‘Where a winding up petition is pending against a company, the company is able to enter into administration under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘Schedule B1’), either through the court making an administration order in respect to the company, or through an appointment under paragraph 14 to Schedule B1 (where no provisional liquidator has been appointed and no administrative receiver is in office). When the company does enter administration, the pending winding up petition is affected.’
33 Bedford Row, 4th November 2019
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Barber held that the Lundy Granite principle does not extend to an obligation to ‘top up’ a rent deposit fund, where sums had been withdrawn from the fund to pay rent. Re London Bridge Entertainment Partners shows how seemingly immaterial business decisions made when an entity is solvent will be thrown into relief when the same entity becomes insolvent. Here, the decision to ‘pay first, ask questions later’ from the deposit fund meant that the landlord effectively lost its priority ranking in respect of those rent payments; a priority it could otherwise have been entitled to. The case also demonstrates that the ambit of provable debts will continue to be construed broadly, while the category of administration expenses will be narrowly construed. Written by Samuel Parsons, barrister at Guildhall Chambers.’
Guildhall Chambers, 22nd November 2019
Source: www.guildhallchambers.co.uk
‘Phillip Patterson provides a summary of recent corporate insolvency cases covering:
– Fraudulent trading;
– Misfeasance, transactions defrauding creditors and the duties of directors; and
– The out of court appointment of administrators.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 9th October 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Customers who were mis-sold loans by the collapsed payday lender Wonga are expected to receive less than 10% of what they are owed in compensation after administrators revealed that only £41m will be put aside for claimants.’
The Guardian, 9th October 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The High Court has given the personal representatives of deceased steelworkers more time to register their compensation claims under a group litigation order (GLO).’
Litigation Futures, 7th February 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024