Existing laws ‘putting people’s pensions at risk’ – BBC News
‘The chancellor has been warned that gaps in existing pension laws “could put the retirement savings of many thousands of people at risk”.’
BBC News, 7th May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Category: insolvency
Just and Equitable Winding – Up & Bankruptcy Trustees – New Square Chambers
‘In a recent decision the Companies Court has held that trustees in bankruptcy do not need to satisfy the actual registration requirements set out in s.124(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA”) before presenting a just and equitable winding-up petition. For the first time, the decision in Stratford Edward Hamilton & James Ashley Dowers (Trustees in Bankruptcy of Charles Newell Brown) v Maureen Frances Brown & C&MB Holdings Ltd [2016] EWHC 191 (Ch)puts bankruptcy trustees in the same position as they are in with respect to unfair prejudice petitions and means that they do not have to wait a minimum of six months following their appointment to have the necessary locus to present a just and equitable winding up petition.’
New Square Chambers, 11th April 2016
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
High Court: commercial tenant cannot assign lease to its guarantor – OUT-LAW.com
‘Anti-avoidance provisions in the 1995 Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act prevent a tenant from assigning a lease to its guarantor, the High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st March 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
Higher education reform much-needed, but government must take time to get the framework right, says expert – OUT-LAW.com
‘Reforming higher education in England is both long overdue, and vitally needed to protect the sector’s hard-won reputation.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th January 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
Wrongful trading: A tale of Robin Hood directors – New Square Chambers
‘Applications for wrongful trading under s 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 are notoriously difficult. In Brooks v Armstrong [2015] EWHC 2289 (Ch), Registrar Jones ordered the former directors of Robin Hood Centre plc (the “Directors”) (the “Company”) to make a contribution to the Company’s assets under s 214. But the relatively small award serves as a cautionary reminder of the risks of s 214 applications for liquidators and directors alike.’
New Square Chambers, 1st December 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
City Link directors ‘not guilty’ of failing to notify government of looming redundancies – OUT-LAW.com
‘City Link did not breach laws requiring them to notify the government that they were “proposing to dismiss” thousands of employees who were made redundant when the business became insolvent last year, a court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 16th November 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
IPs hit back at Jackson: ending LASPO exemption would create ‘windfall’ for third-party funders – Litigation Futures
‘Abolishing the exemption from LASPO for insolvency cases would create a “windfall” for third-party funders, insolvency trade body R3 has argued.’
Litigation Futures, 29th October 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Jackson urges government to end insolvency litigation exemption from his reforms –
‘Lord Justice Jackson has called for the recently extended exemption for insolvency cases from the impact of his reforms to come to an end, describing recoverability as “an instrument of oppression, which is liable to crush defendants who have a good defence”.’
Litigation Futures, 20th October 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Jackson: drop ‘oppressive’ exemption to my rules – Law Society’s Gazette
‘Lord Justice Jackson has urged the government to ditch one of the final exemptions to his civil justice reforms.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 19th October 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
High Court: up to directors to prove they took ‘every step’ to minimise potential loss to creditors – OUT-LAW.com
‘It is up to the directors of an insolvent company to prove that they took “every step” to minimise the potential loss to creditors as soon as they knew that the company could not reasonably avoid liquidation, the High Court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th August 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
Granting an option to purchase a shareholding to a party as relief for unfair prejudice was within the court’s discretion – Tanfield Chambers
‘Granting an option to purchase a shareholding to a party for a significant sum as relief for unfair prejudice was within the court’s discretion under the Companies Act 2006 s.996 despite valuation evidence showing the company was balance sheet insolvent.’
Tanfield Chambers, 14th July 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
New insolvency legislation: A guide to the new Deregulation Act 2015 and Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 – Hardwicke Chambers
‘The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (SEEBA) and the Deregulation Act 2015 were added to the statute book on 26 March. Both contain provisions that make significant changes to the Insolvency Act 1986.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th June 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Insolvency–when can secondary proceedings in other member states be opened? – 11 Stone Buildings
‘Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Discussing the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) judgment in Comité d’entreprise de Nortel Networks SA, John Jessup of 11 Stone Buildings says the significant point to be taken from this case is that those who plan to open, or have opened, main insolvency proceedings can do little to prevent secondary proceedings being opened in another member state.’
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, July 2015
Source: www.11sb.com
Consumer Prepayments on Retailer Insolvency – Law Commission
‘In a consultation paper published on 18 June 2015, the Law Commission considers whether prepaying consumers should be better protected in the event of company insolvency, either through improved voluntary mechanisms or required by law.’
Law Commission, 18th June 2015
Source: www.lawcommission.justice.gov.uk
In re Hartmann Capital Ltd (in special administration) – WLR Daily
In re Hartmann Capital Ltd (in special administration); [2015] EWHC 1514 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 241
‘As a matter of construction of article 4 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No 5 and Saving Provisions) Order 2013, which spoke in specific terms of an administrator “appointed pursuant to the provisions of Part II of the [Insolvency] 1986 Act” and a company which had “entered into administration under Part II of the 1986 Act”, administrators appointed pursuant to the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/245) were denied the funding possibilities available to other administrators.’
WLR Daily, 13th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Lehman Bros International (Europe) (in administration) (No 4) – WLR Daily
‘The Court of Appeal made rulings following determination of issues raised in the administration of three companies as to the potential liability of two members in the group for the liabilities of the principal trading company, an unlimited company, and in particular its subordinated liabilities, and the relationship between their liability, if any, as members and their claims as creditors.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Ltd – WLR Daily
Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Ltd [2015] EWHC 1177 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 200
‘Where the debt in a statutory demand itself was not disputed but the debtor relied on a cross-claim which did not equal the debt but fell short of it by less than £750, the statutory demand was not necessarily to be set aside under the residual discretion in rule 6.5(4)(d) of the Insolvency Rules 1986.’
WLR Daily, 1st May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
