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.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
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
February 2017 highlights from the Lexis®PSL R&I team. This month’s highlights include details of the new LN forms committee appointed to look at our new forms under the new Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), plus details of our new practice notes on the IR 2016, together with a round up of other restructuring and insolvency news and cases.
In this issue:
The Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, SI 2016/1024 (IR 2016) remove the Insolvency Service’s obligation to prepare prescribed forms when they come into force on 6 April 2017. Despite Companies House and the Insolvency Service announcing that they will be producing certain forms, significant uncertainty remains as to what the format of many of the forms and applications under the IR 2016 should look like. This uncertainty has caused alarm to many practitioners. LexisNexis has therefore established a committee of the following leading insolvency professionals to establish standard form documents which are expected to be widely adopted across the market:
For further details, see News Analysis: Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016—forms committee named by LexisNexis.
Re Dee Valley Group plc  EWHC 184 (Ch)
The High Court held in Re Dee Valley Group PLC that a Chairperson of a shareholder scheme meeting may reject votes cast against a scheme of arrangement in circumstances where the shares were acquired through an artificial share-splitting exercise designed to frustrate the scheme. Catherine Balmond, Craig Montgomery, Priyanka Usmani and Katharina Crinson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer consider the impact of the first English case to consider this issue. While it arose in the context of a shareholder scheme, the impact is also significant for debt restructurings implemented by way of a creditor scheme of arrangement (see News Analysis: Schemes of arrangement—the end of the numerosity test?).
Thomas and another v Frogmore Real Estate Partners GP1 Ltd and others, Frogmore Real Estate Partners GP1 Ltd and others v Thomas  EWHC 25 (Ch),  All ER (D) 73 (Jan)
The Chancery Division made a declaration to the effect that the centre of main interest of three companies was in the United Kingdom and that, as a result, it had jurisdiction to make orders concerning the administration of the companies. On the evidence, there had been no improper motive on the part of the building society that had made loans to the companies, and an application for a declaration that there had been would therefore be dismissed. Richard Perkoff, barrister at Littleton Chambers, who acted for the applicant administrators, considers the decision.
Fielding and another v Hunt (acting as liquidator of the Burnden Group Ltd)  EWHC 247 (Ch),  All ER (D) 169 (Feb)
How should a court deal with conflicts between contemporaneous documents and the evidence of witnesses who have not been cross-examined? Nick Oliver, director and head of the insolvency and business turnaround team at Verisona Law, considers the Chancery Division’s approach in this case, when hearing an appeal against a liquidator’s rejection of a proof of debt.
Safe Business Solutions Ltd (in liquidation) v Cohen  EWHC 145 (Ch)
In what circumstances can the courts lift a statutory protection of moratorium in order to allow an insolvent company to commence litigation against its administrators? Amy Keogh, associate at Irwin Mitchell LLP, considers the issues before the Registrar in this case.
Mikki v Duncan  EWCA Civ 1312,  All ER (D) 157 (Feb)
How should trustees treat vehicles held under hire purchase agreements in bankruptcy? Jonathan Titmuss of Hardwicke chambers, who acted for the successful trustee in bankruptcy (trustee), explores the background to the appeal, the main legal arguments, and the legal and practical implications of the decision.
Harvey v Dunbar Assets plc (No 2)  EWCA Civ 60,  All ER (D) 127 (Feb)
The Court of Appeal was asked to decide whether a debtor could apply to set aside a statutory demand on a ground that he had unsuccessfully argued in respect of a previous statutory demand that had been served on him. Joseph Curl, barrister at 9 Stone Buildings who acted for Dunbar Assets plc, discusses the Court of Appeal’s judgment (see News Analysis: Setting aside statutory demands and abuse of process (Harvey v Dunbar Assets plc (No 2))).
Akers and others v Samba Financial Group  UKSC 6,  All ER (D) 06 (Feb)
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the appellant Saudi Arabian bank and held that a trustee’s transfer to it of shares he was alleged to have been holding on trust for the fourth respondent, a Cayman Islands company in liquidation, had not been a disposition within the meaning of section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). Therefore, the claim by the fourth respondent and its liquidators that the transfer was void had no prospect of success. Daniel Smith, counsel, and Kavan Bakhda, associate, at Latham & Watkins examine the Supreme Court’s judgment in Akers v Samba Financial Group in relation to the effect of section 127 of the IA 1986 and the lex situs on transfers of trust property (see News Analysis: Foreign trust assets and liquidations—when beneficiaries’ rights might vanish (Akers v Samba Financial Group)).
South Coast Construction Ltd v Iverson Road Ltd  EWHC 61 (TCC),  All ER (D) 114 (Jan)
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that, if a moratorium had continued in respect of the defendant company, the claimant company’s application, under IA 1986, Schedule B1, paragraph 43(6)(b) for permission to proceed with proceedings to enforce an adjudicator’s award in the claimant’s favour would have been granted. Lucie Briggs of Atkin Chambers, who was counsel for South Coast Construction, considers the decision (see News Analysis: Notice of intention should not be used as delaying tactic (South Coast Construction Ltd v Iverson Road Ltd)).
Re Primeo Fund (in liquidation); MacRae v Fisher  EWHC 2432 (Ch),  All ER (D) 96 (Sep)
How will the court approach applications by insolvency practitioners (IPs) under IA 1986, ss 236 and 366 for the purpose of litigation? Robert Amey of South Square, who successfully represented the applicant in a recent case, says the court was required to balance the reasonable requirement of the liquidators against the need to avoid making an unreasonable, unnecessary or oppressive order.
Sands (as trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of Layne (a bankrupt)) v Layne  EWCA Civ 1159,  All ER (D) 160 (Nov)
Can the court dismiss a bankruptcy petition where the creditor refuses a reasonable offer of security—even if the debtor is insolvent? Richard Ascroft of Guildhall Chambers welcomes the Court of Appeal’s recent clarification of the circumstances in which the jurisdiction under IA 1986, s 375(1) may be exercised.
Davy v Pickering  EWCA Civ 30,  All ER (D) 104 (Jan)
Guy Adams, barrister at St John’s Chambers, reviews the decision in Davy v Pickering, which concerns the directions and provisions the court can make when restoring a company to the register of companies, as specified under the Companies Act 2006, s 1032(3) (CA 2006) of (see News Analysis: Restoring to the register of companies under CA 2006 (Davy v Pickering and others)).
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has updated the Chancery Court Guide. The changes include contact details and web addresses, as well as new information about the company insolvency pro bono scheme, and reference to the fact the e-filing scheme in the Rolls Building is to become mandatory on 25 April 2017 (para 6.1).
A revised version of Statement of Insolvency Practice 15 (SIP 15) on creditor committees has been issued by the Joint Insolvency Committee (JIC), the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has announced. The revised SIP 15 will come into effect on 1 March 2017.
Re Gertner; CFL Finance Ltd v Rubin
 EWHC 111 (Ch)
The Chancery Division allowed the applicant company's application for an order revoking the making of an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) in relation to the financial affairs of the third respondent, R. The court held that the creditors' meeting at which the IVA had been approved had been subject to a material irregularity, in that the vote of one of the creditors should not have been allowed, as it had previously made a settlement agreement with R. An order was made revoking the approval for the IVA.
Dickinson v NAL Realisations (Staffordshire) Ltd
 EWHC 28 (Ch)
The Chancery Division held that, among other things, the claimant's claim to recover sums which, he alleged, were due to him and secured by a debenture over a company that was in liquidation, would not succeed, where certain transactions had allegedly been made at an undervalue. The court held that a share buyback had been void.
There have been developments on the following cases this month:
Decision being appealed:  EWHC 115 (QB),  All ER (D) 221 (Jan).
Decision being appealed:  EWHC 2269 (Ch),  All ER (D) 11 (Aug).
Decision being appealed:  EWHC 1697 (Ch),  All ER (D) 178 (Jun).
This is a shortened version of the LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency Monthly Highlights which was first published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency.
Not a subscriber? Find out more about how LexisPSL can help you and click here for a free trial of LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234