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
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Richard Ascroft, barrister at Guildhall Chambers, says that Golstein v Bishop underlines the importance of ensuring disclosure of all matters potentially relevant to an assessment by creditors of proposals for an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA).
Golstein v Bishop  EWHC 2804 (Ch),  All ER (D) 162 (Nov)
The Chancery Division made an order, under section 262(4)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), revoking the approval of an IVA where material irregularity had been established. The IVA had been approved following the termination of a professional partnership between solicitors, the appellant (G) and the first respondent (B). In earlier proceedings, the court had granted (in part) G's appeal against a district judge's refusal to revoke the decision approving the IVA on the ground that B, who had proposed the IVA, had failed to disclose the fact that he had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. In granting the order under IA 1986, s 264(4)(a), the court held that there was no detriment to the IVA creditors in revoking the approval since they stood to recover very little, if anything, from it.
The appellant and the first respondent were both solicitors. Between October 2007 and June 2010, they carried on business in partnership. Following the dissolution of the partnership, the appellant began proceedings in the High Court seeking various forms of relief in relation to the partnership.
The first respondent proposed the IVA in response to a bankruptcy petition presented against him by the appellant. The petition debt was about £19,000, reflecting an unpaid costs order obtained by the appellant in the partnership proceedings.
The relevant meeting of creditors took place in May 2012. Shortly before the meeting, a friend and neighbour of the first respondent tendered to the appellant a sum sufficient to discharge the petition debt
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234