header-logo header-logo

07 June 2012
Issue: 7517 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Insolvency

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Football League Ltd [2012] EWHC 1372 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 214 (May)

The pari passu principle applied to any distribution, whether or not it was expressly triggered by the relevant insolvency procedure. It was enough that the effect of the relevant contractual or other provision was to apply an asset belonging to the debtor at or following the commencement of the insolvency procedure in a non-pari passu way. Contracts conflicting with the pari passu principle were void without any need to show that their purpose was to avoid a pari passu distribution.

The pari passu principle served a purpose and should come into play only if the purpose of the insolvency procedure was to effect a distribution. In the case of liquidation or bankruptcy, that was when the company entered liquidation or the debtor was declared bankrupt. In the case of administration, that was when the administrator gave notice of the proposed distribution. It was settled law that the anti-deprivation rule was aimed at attempts to withdraw an asset on bankruptcy or

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths strengthens national tax team with Heather Gibson appointment

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll