Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
The draft Deregulation Bill proposes a number of changes to insolvency practice, including the option to partially qualify in specialist area. Christopher Brockman at Guildhall Chambers believes many of the proposals could ease the work of insolvency practitioners.
Policy Paper: Draft Deregulation Bill
The government’s Deregulation Bill, published on 1 July 2013, amends or repeals 182 different pieces of legislation affecting businesses, individuals and public bodies. Schedule 5 repeals certain obsolete sections of the Insolvency Act 1986.
The changes that most affect administrations are:
The new para 25A of the draft Bill clarifies that the prohibition on appointing an administrator when a winding-up petition has been presented and not yet disposed of applies only to a petition presented before an interim moratorium comes into effect.
Paragraph 6 removes a requirement in IA 1986, Sch B1, para 26(2) to give notice of intention to appoint an administrator to persons who are not themselves entitled to appoint an administrative receiver or administrator.
At present a company or its directors intending to appoint an administrator must give notice of the intention to appoint to:
The prescribed persons are set out in the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, r 2.20 and include:
Unlike those entitled to appoint a receiver or administrator, the prescribed persons cannot block the appointment of an administrator. This brings an end to the conflict between the decision in Hill v Stokes Plc EWHC 3726 (Ch)—where the court declared the appointment of administrators was not rendered invalid or ineffective by reason of the failure of directors to give a copy of the notice of intention to appoint to landlords who were distraining—and Minmar Ltd v Khalatschi  EWHC 1159 (Ch),  All ER (D) 99 (Oct) in which the Chancellor held (in an obiter passage) that administrators had not been validly appointed where notice of intention has not been given to the company.
Currently IA 1986, Sch B1, para 98(2)(b) provides that an administrator obtains his release by a resolution of a creditors’ committee or by a resolution of the creditors. IA 1986, Sch B1, para 98(3) provides that, where an administrator makes a statement under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 52(1)(b) (company has insufficient property to make a distribution to unsecured creditors), a resolution requires the approval of every secured creditor and (where distributions to preferential creditors have been or may be made) the approval of at least 50% of the preferential creditors by value. This implies that a normal resolution of all the creditors is required plus a resolution of all of the secured creditors.
The proposed amendments made by para 7 distinguish para 52(1)(b) cases from non-para 52(1)(b) cases. Therefore, where the unsecured creditors have no interest in the administration (other than by virtue of the ‘prescribed part’), it will be clear that the unsecured creditors are not involved in the administrator’s release—the release only needs to be given by (all of) the secured creditors (together with at least 50% of the preferential creditors if relevant) and is effective from the time they decide. It will not be necessary for the secured creditors to hold a meeting.
The Bill inserts a new subsection into the s stating that, when a winding-up order is rescinded, the liquidator has their release with effect from the time the court may determine.
Deeds of arrangement in respect of individuals are abolished. This belatedly implements a recommendation in the Cork Report and recognises that they have been replaced by individual voluntary arrangements (IVAs) and debt relief orders.
There is only one deed of arrangement still in existence, which was registered in 2004. This has its own saving provision. Deeds of arrangement are not necessarily binding on all creditors whereas IVAs are binding even where a creditor was unaware of the proposal at the time it was approved.
In all current bankruptcy cases a bankrupt is required to complete and lodge a statement of affairs with the Official Receiver, whether that is on a debtor’s or creditor’s petition. The amendments of IA 1986, s 288 provide that a statement of affairs is not required in a case where a creditor presented the petition unless requested by the official receiver. This mirrors the position where a company has been wound up by the court.
On the whole these are sensible amendments, largely clearing up points of practice. In addition, the Bill proposes to introduce a system whereby insolvency practitioners can chose to qualify in either or both personal or corporate insolvency alone. Those partially qualified will only be able to practice in their chosen specialist area.
The requirement to give notice to these prescribed persons can lead to unnecessary delays in appointing an administrator. This is especially the case where there is no one else to whom notice of intention to appoint must be given, and so the requirement is being removed. The prescribed persons will in any event receive notice of the appointment when it is made.
There are also some proposed amendments to the Directors Disqualification regime, including the ability of the Secretary of State to require people to provide information to enable a decision to be made as to whether proceedings should be commenced. More amendments have been proposed in the recent Department of Business, Innovation and Skills Consultation: Transparency and trust—Enhancing the transparency of UK company ownership and increasing trust in UK business.
The removal of deeds of arrangement is really catching up with proposals that were made in 1984 and long overdue.
There is no set deadline for the amendments to come into force. Most are stated to do so on a date to be appointed. A committee of MPs and peers will soon be appointed to begin scrutinising the draft bill which it is proposed will come in to effect during 2014.
0330 161 1234