‘A solvency statement was found to be invalid, a reduction in capital and distribution unlawful and three directors in breach of their duties after a corporate reorganisation left a company unable to meet its liabilities, the High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd May 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Former BHS owner Dominic Chappell plans to sue Sir Philip Green and contest a proposed boardroom ban in a bid to repair his “tarnished reputation” and resurrect his career.’
Daily Telegraph, 9th April 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Former BHS owner Dominic Chappell will be banned from serving as company director for up to 15 years over his role in the the high street chain’s collapse, while its previous owner Sir Philip Green will escape any sanction. The Insolvency Service said that the retail mogul Sir Philip, who sold BHS to thrice bankrupt Mr Chappell little over a year before its demise for £1, will not face further action.’
Daily Telegraph, 27th March 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Company directors were said to be responsible for assets despite their use of corporate vehicles, the Supreme Court has ruled (12-page / 157KB PDF). The ruling means that a six year limitation period stopping liquidators taking legal action against the directors does not apply. This case will impact future misfeasance actions. Director and officer indemnity insurers should take note of this decision as it confirms that the English courts are unwilling to accept the six-year limitation defence for actions against directors following the disposal of company assets in breach of fiduciary duty for economic gain.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd March 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The High Court has said that BHS cannot challenge the terms of its own company voluntary arrangement (CVA) as unenforceable contractual penalties. The case provides guidance as to how CVAs operate post termination and the payment of rent as an expense of a company’s administration in priority to other debts.’
OUT-LAW.com, 14th March 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘One of the interesting features of the recent decision of Coulson J in Ziggurat (Claremont Place) LLP v HCC International Insurance Company Plc is the effect on a guarantee of a contractor becoming insolvent many years after a construction project has been completed. In Ziggurat, the amended ABI model form of guarantee bond had not yet expired. This allowed the employer to make a claim under the guarantee arising out of the contractor’s insolvency, notwithstanding the fact that the contractor’s employment had already been terminated and the project had achieved practical completion.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 21st February 2018
‘The High Court has said that it could not impose a permanent moratorium against creditor action in England and Wales where the foreign restructuring of an Azerbijan bank had been recognised as a foreign main proceeding under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th February 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Over the past few months, a number of large construction companies have been making headlines for facing severe financial difficulties. However, sub-contractor insolvency can also cause considerable problems for other parties on construction projects who have contractual relations with that party.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 24th January 2018
‘I read the decision in Ziggurat with some incredulity. I hadn’t intended to trespass on Karen Spencer’s territory, and overall I’d agree with her conclusion that the amendments made to the ABI form seem to have confused rather than clarified matters. I’d also agree with Roddy Cormack’s comment that more radical surgery is needed if the employer wishes to secure earlier payment following the contractor’s insolvency. But I did want to offer some thoughts on what the decision tells us about wider issues in the surety bonding market.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 17th January 2018
‘Phones 4u has dealt a blow to Britain’s biggest mobile operator from beyond the grave, winning a key battle in a long campaign by its administrators to extract £120m in unpaid commission from EE.’
Daily Telegraph, 17th January 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Statutory interest paid by a company in administration on a surplus is ‘yearly interest’ for UK tax purposes and must therefore be paid after deduction of basic rate tax, the Court of Appeal has decided, overturning a previous decision of the High Court.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th January 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In a commendable judgment dated 24 October 2016 in Premier Motorauctions v Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Snowden J injected a much needed dose of realism into an issue which had, for too long, suffered from a regrettable degree of uncertainty, namely security for costs applications against parties with after the event (ATE) insurance cover. Cases this year suggest that this is now a go-to authority for applications of this sort.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 16th November 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has determined the extent of creditors’ entitlements to statutory interest on their debts and the correct approach for calculating their entitlement. It has ruled on the entitlement of representative creditors of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) to the surplus funds and on the calculation of the statutory interest due to them.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th November 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The harsh impact of the Jackson reforms on the costs world is on display today as we reveal that one costs business is closing down, while it has emerged that another has been reborn after the directors bought the assets, files and outstanding WIP from its joint administrators.’
Litigation Futures, 30th October 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal has rejected a law firm’s claim to its legal fees in a battle with a liquidator over a conditional fee agreement (CFA).’
Litigation Futures, 8th August 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Dozens of leading charities could face insolvency within weeks after the Government ruled they must pay millions of pounds in back payments to overnight carers.’
The Independent, 19th July 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The long-awaited overhaul of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (IR 1986) is now complete, and the Insolvency Rules 2016 (IR 2016) came into force on 6 April 2017. The journey to this point has not been without its difficulties and it would be fair to say that many had anticipated them being in force some time earlier. Perhaps unusually for provisions so overtly procedural in their nature, IR 2016 have also proved to be somewhat controversial.
Hardwicke Chambers, 14th June 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
In re Nortel Networks UK Ltd and related companies (No 2) [2017] EWHC 1429 (Ch)
‘The applicants, the administrators of companies in the same group, were aware of a number of potential claims, which might if established, qualify as administration expenses (“expense claims”), and thereby rank for payment in priority to the claims of unsecured creditors. Neither the Insolvency Act 1986, nor the Insolvency Rules 1986, nor the Insolvency Rules 2016 provided any express mechanism under which an administrator could require expense claims to be asserted by a specific date, or enable him to refuse to deal with claims asserted after that date in the context of a distribution to unsecured creditors. In the absence of any applicable statutory scheme, the administrators applied to the High Court for directions under paragraph 63 of Schedule B1 to the 1986 Act to implement a scheme informing potential claimants that any expense claims which had not yet been made had to be notified to the administrators on a prescribed form on or before a specified date.’
WLR Daily, 16th June 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended)(“the Construction Act”) implies terms concerning payment and the right to adjudicate in construction contracts. Despite this Act being primarily concerned with construction contract issues, insolvency practitioners are becoming increasingly familiar with its provisions because of the rights to payment the Act creates. These rights are increasingly being used as a basis to commence insolvency proceedings.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 24th April 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024