Insolvency Insight - Issue 4 | August 2021

Published date31 August 2021
Subject MatterInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-structuring, Insolvency/Bankruptcy
Law FirmQuadrant Chambers
AuthorMs Emily Saunderson

OVERVIEW

Welcome to the next edition of the insolvency insight bulletin from the insolvency specialists at Quadrant Chambers. All cases link to the relevant judgments.

Author: Emily Saunderson

Editors: Nicola Allsop and Emily Saunderson

Case law

  • Al Jaber v Mitchell [2021] EWCA Civ 1190: the Court of Appeal held that oral and written statements made by an examinee in an examination under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 enjoy immunity from suit. This overturned the decision at first instance.
  • Re Bedzhamov [2021] EWHC 2281 (Ch): a Russian bankruptcy order should be recognised in this jurisdiction but there is no common law power to entrust real property in England owned by a Russian bankrupt domiciled in England to the Russian trustee in bankruptcy. There is no common law power to declare that the property has vested in the trustee or to order it to be transferred to the trustee or sold for her benefit.
  • Bucknall v Wilson [2021] EWHC 2149 (Ch): change of position is not a defence to an action under section 339 (transactions at an undervalue) and/or section 340 (preferences) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
  • Re Ipagoo LLP (In Administration) [2021] EWHC 2163 (Ch) Ipagoo LLP was authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority as an Electronic Money Institution ("EMI"). As such it was not entitled to take deposits, and it was required to safeguard "relevant funds", defined in the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 ("the Regulations") as sums paid by Electronic Money Holders to the EMI in exchange for e-money. The Court found that the Regulations do not create a statutory trust in favour of electronic money holders in the event of an EMI's insolvency. However, regulation 24 of the Regulations gives electronic money holders priority over the "relevant funds". Where the "relevant funds" have not been safeguarded as they should have been, a sum equal to the deficit should be added to them and the "relevant funds" distributed in priority to other...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT