Insolvency Point meaning

Checklist and timeline A straightforward checklist and timeline sets out each stage from the point a debt becomes due right through to a bankruptcy petition being presented. It is relevant to personal insolvency where a statutory demand has been served on the debtor. For further reading on statutory demands, please refer to: Statutory demands for restructuring and insolvency professionals—overview Practice Note: What is a statutory demand?...

This Checklist outlines a series of practical measures that a main contractor should weigh up if a sub-contractor it has appointed becomes insolvent during a construction project. It proceeds on the basis that the parties have a written sub-contract covering construction works that remain unfinished, and that the arrangement is not a PFI project. The precise response in any given case will inevitably turn on the contractual provisions between the parties and the stage the works have reached at the point of the sub-contractor’s insolvency, but this Checklist is intended to act as an initial framework for the contractor should such circumstances arise. For guidance on identifying warning signs of solvency issues and safeguarding the contractor’s position at the outset of a project, see Practice Note: Construction insolvency-how to spot problems and how to protect yourself-contractors. Where a sub-contractor has become insolvent, the contractor must act promptly to protect its financial position and to enable completion of the project with as little disruption and delay as possible, thereby avoiding exposure...

Procurement process flowchart This Procurement process flowchart outlines the sequence a procurement might follow and highlights the factors to weigh and the considerations involved to maintain a transparent and appropriate procedure. It further points to the Precedents on hand to support you through the procurement steps. This Flowchart serves as a worked illustration and is not meant to be exhaustive. While organisations may adopt quite varied approaches, it offers a useful baseline or point of reference. Any contract value amounts shown here are for demonstration purposes only...

Singh (as trustee in bankruptcy of Mrs Angela Garcha) v Garcha and others [2024] EWHC 1844 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The obligation on a judge to provide reasons for their conclusions flows from three core considerations: ensuring that the appellate system can operate effectively (English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd (Practice Note) [2002] EWCA Civ 605; [2002] 1 WLR 2409, para [19]) recognising that the parties are entitled to be told how their substantive rights have been decided (Weymont v Place [2015] EWCA Civ 289, para [6]) upholding fairness by addressing any evidence that appears particularly persuasive, where such material exists (Simetra Global Assets Ltd v Ikon Finance Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1413, para [46]) That said, a judge is not required to engage with every point raised. It is enough if the reasoning demonstrates to the parties—and, if necessary, to the Court of Appeal—the essential basis on which the decision was reached (Eagil...

Prince Hussam Bin Saud and another v Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP [2024] EWHC 1724 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision offers clear, practical guidance on applying the ‘good arguable case’ limb when seeking permission to serve the petition outside the jurisdiction, pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 and CPR 6.37. It further emphasises how the appellate court treats attempts to overturn a first instance judge’s assessment of the facts—in particular, whether the appellant debtor maintained a place of residence within the jurisdiction at any point during the three years before the petition was presented. In addressing these issues, the judge also drew together and explained the authorities on what amounts to a place of residence for the purposes of IA 1986, s 265, which operates as a threshold requirement for making a bankruptcy order...

Just Trays Ltd v Emu Products Ltd [2024] EWHC 29 (Ch), [2024] All ER (D) 55 (Jan) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment underscores that carefully marshalled evidence, directly engaging with the questions the court must resolve, is essential to showing a triable issue with real prospects of success. The judge remarked that JTL’s evidence was precise and comprehensive, notably in explaining the computation of particular sums, and it also relied on EPL’s own papers. The court contrasted this with EPL’s material, which did not adopt the same structured approach to revealing how its figures had been put together. The decision further reiterates the governing test for an injunction restraining presentation, and it offers a useful point of comparison with Bridger & Co Ltd v Specialist Lending Ltd (t/a Duologi) [2023] EWHC 2562 (Ch), [2023] All ER (D) 89 (Oct) (see also News Analysis: Winding up petitions—application to restrain advertisement ( Bridger & Co Ltd v Specialist Lending Ltd )), another recent decision on...

Property Disputes (PD) This beginner’s guide sets out a primer on Property Disputes (PD). It is designed for trainee solicitors and practitioners encountering PD for the first time. The guide highlights the principal issues that commonly arise in PD and signposts other Lexis+® UK sources and materials offering fuller detail on the subjects covered. Newcomers to PD will also benefit from the Overviews within each PD subtopic. These provide a summary of every subtopic, with links to pertinent content inside that subtopic to aid navigation. For instance, see: Property insolvency—overview. The PD module further includes a Property Disputes introductory materials topic, containing links to training materials and “How to guides”, “Quick guides”, plus checklists and flowcharts. The PD module centres on property disputes in England and Wales, while a distinct subtopic focusses on Scottish property disputes (see: Property disputes in Scotland—overview). If a point is not addressed in this guide, use the PD practice area Topics tab or the Topics dropdown menu to explore additional content. This guide also...

This Practice Note examines the enforcement of standard security over heritable property in Scotland. Legal framework The regime governing enforcement of standard securities sits in, and is derived from, Part II of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 (CFR(S)A 1970). The statutory framework originally set out in the CFR(S)A 1970 has been significantly modified for securities over properties used for residential purposes, principally by the following: Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act 2001, and Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Act 2010 When considering enforcement of any standard security, the reference point is the security instrument itself and, in particular, the operation and application of the ‘Standard Conditions’ contained in CFR(S)A 1970, Sch 3. From an enforcement standpoint, normally the key Standard Conditions to note in practice are: Standard Condition 9—which defines the circumstances in which a debtor is to be treated as being in default, and Standard Condition 10—which describes the creditor’s suite of rights once...

A receiver commonly operates as the mortgagor's agent in collecting income and in disposing of the assets in respect of which that receiver has been appointed. This Practice Note considers the effect of bankruptcy or liquidation on the position of the receiver as agent of the mortgagor, and the consequences of a receiver losing that agency in that capacity in practice. The receiver's status is important because it affects: the potential liability of both the receiver and the appointing mortgagee for acts carried out by the receiver, and for omissions by the receiver to do those acts how any documentation is structured, ie whether the receiver enters into an agreement as principal, or as the mortgagor's agent Where the receiver cannot act as the mortgagor's agent, they will either act as principal or, less preferably from the mortgagee's point of view, as the mortgagee's agent, in such circumstances as applicable. For an explanation of the different types of receivers, see...

Frequently Asked Questions—clients, investors or trade creditors These FAQs are provided solely for guidance in relation to the Special Administration of [ insert company ] and the Investment Bank Special Administration (England and Wales) Rules 2011, SI 2011/1301. You should seek your own legal and other professional advisers for advice in relation to your claim. General FAQs What is a special administration? The Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011, SI 2011/245 were brought in to enhance the process when an investment bank collapses or fails. [ Set out the distinctions from ordinary administration, the statutory objectives underpinning a special administration, the possibility of forming a creditors' committee, together with how costs are to be met in practice, eg the costs and expenses of returning client assets are to be paid out of relevant client assets and other costs and expenses are to be paid out of the Company’s own/firm assets. ] Who are Special Administrators? Special...

Can a claim be made against a company for trading whilst insolvent? Wrongful trading There is no standalone claim triggered merely by a company ‘trading whilst insolvent’, even though that phrase is commonly used. What is usually intended is a ‘wrongful trading’ claim. This cause of action arises under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and, at present, applies only where a company has gone into an ‘insolvent liquidation’. IA 1986, s 214(6) defines this as the company entering liquidation at a time when its assets are insufficient to meet its debts, other liabilities, and the expenses of the winding up. The key point is that a wrongful trading claim can only be brought by the company’s liquidator; it is not a claim that a creditor may advance against a company, whether or not insolvency proceedings are on foot. The claim is pursued against the company’s director(s), rather than the company itself...