Archive for the 'winding up' Category

Regina v Taylor (George Charles) – WLR Daily

Regina v Taylor (George Charles) [2011] EWCA Crim 728;  [2011] WLR (D)  108

“Records kept on computer that affected or related to a company’s property or affairs were within the composite expression ‘book or paper affecting or relating to the company’s property or affairs’ within section 206(1)(c) of the Insolvency Act 1986.”

WLR Daily, 25th March 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc and other – WLR Daily

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc and others [2011] EWCA Civ 227; [2011] WLR (D) 73

“A company was ‘deemed to be unable to pay its debts’ within section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 when the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities, exceeded the value of its assets to such an extent that the company had reached the point of no return, and if it continued to use its cash or other assets for current purposes it would amount to a fraud on future or contingent creditors.”

WLR Daily, 8th March 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc and others – WLR Daily

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc and others [2010] EWHC 2005 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 223

“The requirement in s 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 to ‘[take] into account [the company’s] contingent and prospective liabilities’ when determining whether the value of the company’s assets was less than the amount of its liabilities could not require such liabilities to be aggregated at their face value with debts presently due, nor require the conversion of prospective liabilities denominated in some currency other than sterling into sterling at the present spot rate.”

WLR Daily, 3rd August 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Bridge Trustees Ltd v Yates and others (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions intervening) – WLR Daily

Bridge Trustees Ltd v Yates and others (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions intervening) [2010] EWCA Civ 179; [2010] WLR (D) 65

“Where a hybrid occupational pension scheme was being wound up the benefits derived from voluntary contributions made to the scheme by the employee and matched by their employer’s contribution, ranked first in order of priority in the winding up of the scheme.”

WLR Daily, 4th March 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Irish Reel Productions Ltd v Capitol Films Ltd – WLR daily

Irish Reel Productions Ltd v Capitol Films Ltd [2010] EWHC 180 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 33

“Where a person presented a winding up petition and appeared at the hearing of an administration application the court had jurisdiction to order that the costs of prosecuting the petition were payable as an expense of the administration.”

WLR Daily, 11th February 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Byers and others v Yacht Bull Corpn and another – WLR Daily

Byers and others v Yacht Bull Corpn and another [2010] EWHC 133 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 18

“A claim to beneficial ownership of a yacht did not fall within the exception contained in art 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters so that the Regulation did not apply to ‘proceedings relating to the winding up of insolvent companies’.”

WLR Daily, 2nd February 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd and another v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and another Butters and others (joint administrators of WW Realisation 8 Ltd and another) v BBC Worldwide Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd and another v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and another
Butters and others (joint administrators of WW Realisation 8 Ltd and another) v BBC Worldwide Ltd and others [2009] EWCA Civ 1160; [2009] WLR (D) 322

“The anti-deprivation rule, which as a matter of public policy prevented parties from contracting out of the insolvency legislation by removing assets otherwise available for creditors, did not apply to complex contractual provisions by which investors were granted rights over assets derived from their own moneys, rights which were modified when an event of default happened, or to licence termination and share option provisions operative on insolvency which did not contravene the Insolvency Act 1986. The rule did not normally apply to a deprivation completed before the liquidation, bankruptcy or its equivalent occurred.”

WLR Daily, 10th November 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and another; Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v Same – WLR Daily

Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and another; Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v Same [2009] EWHC 1912 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 262

 “Although a contractual provision which had the effect of requiring a person who had become insolvent to be deprived of an asset conflicted with the principle that an insolvent’s assets would be available for distribution among his creditors and would generally be unenforceable, the principle did not invalidate contractual provisions which had the effect of prejudicing creditors of a company in the event of insolvency by the actual or effective removal of an asset from the insolvent estate.”

WLR Daily, 30th July 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Easterly Ltd v Headway plc – WLR Daily

Easterly Ltd v Headway plc [2009] EWCA Civ 793; [2009] WLR (D) 255

“A partial buy-out of a guaranteed minimum pension was not precluded by statutory obligations.”

WLR Daily, 24th July 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

In re Stanford International Bank Ltd and others – WLR Daily

“The ‘centre of main interests’ for the purposes of the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 must be identified by reference to factors which were both objective and ascertainable by third parties. What was ascertainable by a third party was what was in the public domain and what a typical third party would learn as a result of dealing with the company.”

WLR Daily, 6th July 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk  

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Bolsover District Council v Dennis Rye Ltd – Times Law Reports

Bolsover District Council v Dennis Rye Ltd

Court of Appeal

“A judge hearing a winding-up petition against a company, when faced with a cross-claim by the company against the petitioner, had to consider only whether the evidence before him was sufficient to satisfy him that the company’s cross-claim was not merely arguable but was genuine and serious, and not whether the company should have previously taken action on the cross-claim unless it had a good reason for not doing so.”

The Times, 19th May 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Bolsover District council v Dennis Rye Ltd – WLR Daily

Bolsover District council v Dennis Rye Ltd; [2009] EWCA Civ 372; [2009] WLR (D) 147

Where a company served with a winding-up petition contended that it had a cross-claim against the petitioner, the issue for the judge was whether the evidence before him was sufficient to satisfy him that the company’s cross claim was not merely arguable but was genuine and serious, and not whether the company should have previously asserted, litigated or issued proceedings for the cross-claim unless it had a good excuse for not doing so.”

WLR Daily, 7th May 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Doleman v Shaw – Times Law Reports

Doleman v Shaw

Court of Appeal

“When a liquidator disclaimed a lease, that did not determine any liability under the lease of the original lessee or of the guarantor in relation to leases or assignments of the leases executed after the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 had come into force on January 1, 1996, although the liability of the insolvent assignee company had ceased after the disclaimer.”

The Times, 22nd April 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Doleman v Shaw – WLR Daily

Doleman v Shaw [2009] EWCA Civ 283; [2009] WLR (D) 115

On a true construction of s 178(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986, on the disclaimer of a lease by a liquidator, although the company ceased to be bound by the tenant covenants so far as its own obligations were concerned, it was treated as still bound so far as third party obligations were concerned.”

WLR Daily, 1st April 2009

source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

 

In re Overnight Ltd Goldfarb v Higgins and Another – Times Law Reports

In re Overnight Ltd Goldfarb v Higgins and Another

Chancery Division

“The cause of action for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 accrued on the making of the winding-up order.”

The Times, 2nd April 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Amway (UK) Ltd – Times Law Reports

Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Amway (UK) Ltd

Court of Appeal

“Where winding-up proceedings were brought against a company because its trading practices were ‘inherently objectionable’ under section 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986, as inserted by section 60(3) of the Companies Act 1989, it was open to the judge to dismiss the proceedings on the basis of assurances from the company that the objectionable features of its business model would be reformed.”

The Times, 18th March 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

In re Charit-Email Technology Partnership LLP; Vermillion International Investments Ltd v Charit-Email Technology Partnership LLP – WLR Daily

In re Charit-Email Technology Partnership LLP; Vermillion International Investments Ltd v Charit-Email Technology Partnership LLP; [2009] WLR (D) 57

“Although the interests and liabilities of a member of a limited liability partnership were different from those of a contributory to a limited company and those differences might lead to some changes in practice so far as petitions to wind them up were concerned, a person seeking to exercise a right to appear and be heard in court proceedings, whether as creditor or contributory, should at least claim to be a member of the class on whom that right was conferred.”

WLR Daily, 17th February 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

In re Overnight Ltd; Goldfarb v Higgins and others – WLR Daily

In re Overnight Ltd; Goldfarb v Higgins and others; [2009] WLR (D) 49

The cause of action for fraudulent trading under s 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 arose on the day the winding up order was made and not when either the petition was presented or the provisional liquidator appointed.”

WLR Daily, 12th February 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Managa Properties Ltd v Brittain – WLR Daily

Managa Properties Ltd v Brittain [2009] EWHC 157 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 42

“Where an application was made under s 172(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 for an order directing the liquidator to call a creditors’ meeting for the purpose of seeking to replace the liquidator, the applicant had to show that it was in the best interests of the liquidation for such an order to be made.”

WLR Daily, 10th February 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Roman Arkadievich Abramovich: the judgment in full – The Times

“High Court ruling includes details of Abramovich’s UK properties, other assets, travel plans and business dealings.”

Full story

The Times, 30th October 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

McGrath and Others v Riddell and Another – Times Law Reports

McGrath and Others v Riddell and Another

House of Lords

“The fact that in a country of principal winding-up of a company in liquidation there would be a class of preferential creditors who would not have priority under English insolvency law was insufficient reason for an English court to refuse to exercise its discretion, under section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986, to order remission of assets located in England to the country of principal winding-up.”

The Times, 11th April 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

McGrath and others v Riddell and another [2008] UKHL 21 – WLR Daily

McGrath and others v Riddell and another [2008] UKHL 21; [2008] WLR (D) 101

If the country of the principal winding up of an insolvent company was a designated ‘relevant country’ for the purposes of s 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the insolvency laws of that country would involve a pari passu distribution of assets to ordinary unsecured creditors, then an English court should accede to a request to remit assets located in England to the principal liquidators for distribution according to the foreign law even if, under that law, there would be a class of preferential creditors who would not have had priority under English insolvency law.”

WLR Daily, 10th April 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.


July 2020
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Categories