"Petition no 289 of 1969Ypres, The Right Honourable John Richard Charles Lambart Franch, the Earl of"of 38 South Audley Street, London, W1 occupation unknow."Date of Issue of Bankruptcy Notice: 10th February 1969 no 444 of 1969Date of Filing of Petition: 3rd April 1969Act of Bankruptcy Alleged: Non compliance before 13 March 1969 with a bankruptcy noticeDate of Receiving Order or DismissalPetition dismissed by order dated 29th July 1969.Petition No 157 of 1970John Richard Charles Lambart French Rt Hon The Earl of YpresDate of issue of Bankruptcy Notice: 17th November 1969 no 106 of 1969Date of filing petition: 6th February 1970Act of Bankruptcy alleged: Non-compliance before 7th January 1970 with a Bankruptcy Notice.Date of Receiving Order: 5th May 1970Date of Adjudication: 30th June 1970 as follows "John Richard Charles Lambart French, Rt Hon the Earl of Ypres of no fixed adress negotiatior and company director lately of 4 Ennismore Gardens, London SW7 formerly of 38 South Audley Street, London W1 previously of Hawthorn Farm, Stow Bedon, Attleborough, norfolk described in the receiving order as occupation unknown.Notice sent to the Speaker of the House of Lords and the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery: 14th October 1977."
Friday, 28 May 2010
Peerage and MP Ledger: The Right Honourable John Richard Charles Lambart French, the 3rd Earl of Ypres - soldier and bankrupt
Thursday, 27 May 2010
Peerage and MP Ledger: Edward Fitzgerald, His Grace the 7th Duke of Leinster - peer, soldier, Wallis Simpson's lover, bankrupt and suicide
- the 4th Baron Kildare of Kildare;
- the 12th Baron Offaly;
- the 7th Marquess of Kildare,
- the 7th Duke of Leinster;
- the 7th Earl of Offaly;
- the 26th Earl of Kildare;
- the 7th Viscount Leinster of Taplow.
"Leinster, Edward Fitzgerald Duke of,No.953/22Bankruptcy Notice Issued: 7 June 1922Petition filed: 1 July 1922Receiving Order Made: 19 Dec 1922Adjudication made 16 Jan 1923Order of Discharge and terms (if any):Certificate of misfortune:Notification sent to speak of House of Lords and to clerk of the Crown in Chancery, sec 106(1): 31 Jan 1923Acko: 1/2/1923."
"Edward Fitzgerald, Duke of Leinster1238/1931Petition filed 12th Dec 1931...OR: 19/3/34The Judge dismissed..."
"Fitzgerald, Edward, Duke of Leinsterof 82 Portland Place London W1120/34Petition filed 11/12/1934Receiving Order 26/5/36Adjudication 17/7/1936Notification sent to the Speaker of the House of Lords and to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery (sec 106(1) 17th July 1936Acknowledged.Discharged as from the 1st May 1964 by order of the Court dated 30th April 1964."
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Insolvency Service - legal action and consultation deadline - Improving the transparency of, and confidence in, pre-packaged sales in administration
- Question 1: Do you believe that the current framework governing the operation of pre-pack sales in administration provides a sufficient level of confidence that pre-packs are only being used in appropriate circumstances and with an appropriate degree of transparency?
- Question 2: If not, what are your main concerns with the way pre-packs are currently executed?
- Question 3: Do you believe that pre-packs are presently subject to abuse? If so, how? Please indicate whether you believe it is the actions of directors, insolvency practitioners, secured lenders or any other parties that are contributing to any perceived or actual abuse and to what extent you believe this is a problem.
- Question 4: Some of the following options would require a distinction to be drawn between pre-packs and ‘conventional’ administrations. What do you think should be included in a statutory definition as to what constitutes a pre-pack transaction?
- Question 5: Do you believe that the new pre-appointment cost recovery mechanism will have a significant effect on transparency and confidence?
- Question 6: Do you believe that by giving statutory force to the SIP 16 disclosure requirements creditors would be given better information about the reasons and justification for the pre-pack?
- Question 7: Do you believe that such a requirement will increase costs and reduce the returns available to (a) secured creditors, and (b) unsecured creditors? If possible, please provide an estimate of the impact on each.
- Question 8: Do you believe that it would be appropriate for details of the pre-pack to be filed at Companies House? If not, why not?
- Question 9: Do you believe that it would be appropriate for a statutory offence to be created in circumstances where the pre-pack disclosure requirements are not adequately met?
- Question 10: Do you believe that confidence in pre-packs would be improved by requiring companies whose business and assets had been sold through a pre-pack to exit administration via compulsory liquidation? What would be the possible costs and benefits?
- Question 11: Do you believe that an insolvency practitioner providing advice to a company on the potential for a pre-pack has an inherent conflict of interest when accepting a formal appointment as administrator with a view to subsequently executing a pre-pack sale?
- Question 12: If so, do you believe that such a conflict extends to circumstances where the insolvency practitioner has had an ongoing prior relationship with the company in the context of undertaking review work for a secured lender?
- Question 13: Do you believe that a requirement for a different insolvency practitioner to accept appointment as administrator would improve confidence that pre-packs are only used in appropriate circumstances?
- Question 14: Do you believe the requirement to use two separate insolvency practitioners would increase costs and delay therefore reducing the returns available to (a) secured creditors, and (b) unsecured creditors? If so, please provide an estimate of the impact on each.
- Question 15: Do you believe the requirement to use two separate insolvency practitioners would reduce the number of business sales effected through a pre-pack sale? If so, please provide an estimation of the impact.
- Question 16: Is it desirable that unsecured creditors, who may not stand to receive any dividend from the proceedings, be given an opportunity to influence the proposed pre-pack sale where the business is being purchased by a connected party? If so, why?
- Question 17: Should approval for such a sale initially be sought from unsecured creditors with a recourse to the court, or from the court in the first instance? If you believe unsecured creditors should be given the opportunity to approve in the first instance, what percentage in value of their claims should be required for approval to be obtained?
- Question 18: Would the prior approval of the court or creditors for the proposed sale improve confidence that pre-packs are only used in appropriate circumstances?
- Question 19: Do you believe the requirement to obtain court or creditor approval would increase costs and delay therefore reducing the returns available to (a) secured creditors, and (b) unsecured creditors? If so, please provide an estimate of the impact on each.
- Question 20: Do you believe the requirement to obtain court or creditor approval would reduce the number of business sales effected through a pre-pack sale? If so, please provide an estimation of the impact.
- Question 21: Do you believe that any provision requiring the prior approval of the court or creditors for business sales to connected parties should be extended to apply to such sales out of all formal insolvency procedures (i.e. not restricted solely to administration)? If so, why?
- Question 22: Do you believe that a requirement to obtain court or creditor approval for a pre-pack business sale to a connected party should be combined with the attachment of personal liability to directors and connected parties who purchase a business without obtaining the requisite approval?
- Question 23: Do you believe that it would be appropriate for pre-pack business sales to connected parties executed without the requisite approval to be rendered void?
- Question 24: To what extent do you believe that pre-packs provide a positive contribution to the wider economy by allowing economically viable parts of insolvent companies to continue trading? How would you quantify such a contribution? Please provide any evidence you may have to support your comments.
- Question 25: To what extent do you believe that pre-packs create market distortions by allowing companies to ‘dump debts’ and continue trading to the detriment of competitors? How would you quantify this? Please provide any evidence you may have to support your comments.
- Question 26: To what extent do you believe that pre-packs create job losses ‘upstream’ by allowing companies to ‘dump debts’ and continue trading to the detriment of suppliers who then experience knock-on financial difficulties? How would you quantify this? Please provide any evidence you may have to support your comments.
- Question 27: To what extent do you believe that any economic value preserved by a pre-pack sale (e.g. employees, customers, suppliers) would otherwise transfer to alternative ventures (e.g. competitors) if a pre-pack sale was not undertaken? Please provide any evidence you may have to support your comments.
- Question 28: Do you believe that any of the options identified would have a significant impact on the behaviour of secured lenders? If so, what do you think this is likely to be? If possible, please provide an estimation of the impact.
- Question 29: Which of the five proposed options would be your preferred solution(s), and why?
- Question 30: Are there any alternative measures that you believe ought to be considered?
- Question 31: Please provide an indication (if not obvious) as to the nature of your involvement in, or exposure to, pre-pack transactions and the approximate incidence of that involvement or exposure if relevant.
Responses should be sent to Insolvency Practitioner Policy Section of the Insolvency Service, either by email to email@example.com or by post to The Insolvency Service, Zone B, 3rd Floor, 21 Bloomsbury Street, London, WC1B 3QW.
Tuesday, 25 May 2010
"There are three entrances - the one on the west, near Clement's Inn; the central doorway, overlooking the garden, and the unimposing entrance in Carey Street. On entering the building by one of these portals, the visitor finds himself in a very long and broad corridor, which is crowded daily with learned expounders of our bankruptcy laws and their clerks and is constantly the scene of bustling activity."
Monday, 24 May 2010
One may therefore advance that after the one year period, the Court may still exercise an equitable jurisdiction to protect the innocent family member where the latter is gravely ill or house-bound. This no doubt reflects the recommendation by Cork Committee. Nonetheless, where the Court holds that it would be socially unjust to protect the family members and disregard the interests of the creditors in the circumstances, the aggrieved family member may actually feel injustice due to the fact that although the outcome may be deemed to be fair the process by which the Court made the decision was not fair. In other words, the aggrieved family member that would be evicted after the 12 months period may argue that his human rights (family home rights) were unfairly disregarded. This means that the Court may not sacrifice procedural justice on the altar of distributive justice despite the unfairness of the outcome. Nonetheless, it is very much uncertain whether the application by a trustee (acting on behalf of the creditors) for an order for sale under section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 may be subjugated by the invocation of home rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) after the 12 months period and where there are no exceptional circumstances. Given that the rights of the creditors do not constitute the pressing social needs or national security concerns that may legitimately constrain rights enshrined in the HRA, it is difficult to argue that the Court may exercise its equitable jurisdiction to disregard family home rights despite the fairness of the outcome. It is true that the grace period of 12 months is unreasonably short in many cases, however, giving regard to the hierarchy of rules in all cases would ironically result in the consistent neglect of creditors in a process that is aimed at paying debt owed to them.
Friday, 21 May 2010
Insolvency Event: 'The Poulson Affair: Corruption and the role of Bankruptcy Law Public Examinations in the early 1970s' IALS - 21 May 2010.
'The Poulson Affair: Corruption and the role of Bankruptcy Law Public Examinations in the early 1970s'
on Friday 21 May 2010,
Venue: Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5DR
If you wish to attend please RSVP to Belinda Crothers, Email: IALS.Events@sas.ac.uk
ADMISSION FREE – ALL WELCOME"
Picture Credit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40786000/jpg/_40786447_poulson238.jpg
- Insolvency Law in the United Kingdom: The Cork Report at 30 Years.
- Crossing (Dutch) Borders in Insolvency.
- The Intersection of Insolvency and Company Laws.
Thursday, 20 May 2010
"Figures released by R3, the insolvency trade body, reveal that 31% of those in statutory insolvency procedures are still being contacted by those they owe money to. This is made up of 44% of those who have filed for bankruptcy and 25% of those in an IVA.
“It is astounding that individuals continue to be hounded by creditors despite coming under the protection of statutory insolvency procedures,” commented Steven Law, R3 President. “The decision to file for bankruptcy is a difficult one that, once taken, is meant to stop the endless contact from creditors. That such a large proportion of bankrupts are not afforded the peace of mind they are entitled to is of grave concern.” Interestingly, the research shows that a similarly high proportion (44%) of people in an informal insolvency procedure known as a Debt Management Plan (DMP) continue to be chased by their creditors.
Law continued: “The fact that the same percentage of bankrupts and people in a DMP are hassled by their creditors suggests that no matter what procedure a person is in, they can still be contacted. Either creditors need to ensure their records are up to date or they need to play by the rules.” R3 is also calling for a ‘single gateway’ procedure into personal insolvency to stop the ‘insolvency journey’ whereby debtors start off in one procedure only to discover they were poorly advised and better suited to another. R3’s research highlights that almost a third of those who are currently undergoing bankruptcy were in a DMP before becoming bankrupt. “We believe an assured moratorium from the Court for up to 28 days would provide a breathing space for debtors to consider every option, and enjoy a respite from creditor pressure. During that period they would be obliged to seek professional advice before making a decision.” “The range of debt solutions both regulated and unregulated is deeply confusing for an individual in potentially the most stressful period of their life. They should be applauded for taking action to bring resolution to their finances and make a fresh start, not pressured by their creditors once they have acted to deal with their affairs,” concluded Steven Law."
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
"...From 2 July to 12 July the Insolvency Service will be updating its insolvency case management systems which it hopes will deliver "significant efficiency savings".The IT upgrade, called Enabling the Future, is estimated to cost £82m on completion. However, the body hopes the benefits will total more than £122m according to the Service's corporate plan for 2010 – 2011. During this period the Insolvency Service will be unable to receive formsonline; make payments on insolvent estates including dividend payments to creditors; no Debt Relief Orders can be submitted; and there could be reduced services available from the enquiries team due to the lack of access to documents.The London Gazette will also be affected. During this period no information regarding cases can be sent to the publication with the Gazette expected to include additional cases in its next issue."
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
"Chris Nutting, director of personal insolvency at KPMG said: "While these figures show an apparent decrease in the number of people filing for their own petition in bankruptcy the numbers do not reflect the true picture.
"A new procedure called a Debt Relief Order (DRO) was introduced in April, 2009, which allows consumers with debts of less than £15,000, and minimal assets or surplus income, to write off their debts without entering into a full blown bankruptcy.
"Our research shows that a percentage of these people would have previously used bankruptcy to resolve their financial problems.
"Adding the number of DROs for the three months ended March 31, 2010, to the number of debtor's petitions reveals that 21,992 people took action themselves to resolve their financial problems by seeking out a formal insolvency procedure.
"Comparing this to the same quarter last year it can be seen that there has been an overall increase of 31 per cent."
"Gill Wrigley, a Director at RSM Tenon Recovery in the North West, said: “The rise in the number of bankruptcy petitions in Wigan goes against the national trend but will come as no surprise to the many people affected by the downturn.
Monday, 17 May 2010
Friday, 14 May 2010
The Ministry of Justice publish new statistics on insolvency usage in English and Welsh courts for the first quarter 2010
- "2,777 company winding up petitions for dissolving a company that cannot pay its debts, made either by a shareholder, director, or creditor – a decrease of 20% on the same quarter of 2009 and an increase of 4% on the previous quarter.
- 4,329 individual bankruptcy petitions made by creditors (the person to whom the debt is owed) – a decrease of 5% on the same quarter of 2009 and a 4% increase on the previous quarter.
- 16,348 individual bankruptcy petitions made by debtors (the person who owes the debt) – a decrease of 3% on the same quarter of 2009 and a 20% increase on the previous quarter."
The Ministry of Justice also mull on some recent changes to insolvency law that may have affected the figures. They note:
"Increase in fees
Fees relating to The Official Receiver’s Deposit towards the costs of administering insolvency cases increased on 6th April 2010;
for debtors’ bankruptcy petitions from £360 to £450,
creditors’ bankruptcy petitions from £430 to £600,
and company winding up petitions from £715 to £1,000.
This created an incentive for companies and individuals to present petitions to the courts before 6th April and may therefore have resulted in the increase number of petitions being made in Q1 of 2010 compared to recent quarters.
Introduction of Debt Relief Orders
Debt Relief Orders (DROs) were introduced on 6 April 2009 through the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. DROs provide debt relief, subject to some restrictions, and are suitable for people domiciled in England and Wales who do not own their own home, have little surplus income (no more than £50 a month), assets (other than possibly a car) not exceeding £300, and less than £15,000 of debt. As DROs offer an alternative route into personal insolvency, they are likely to have had a downward impact on the number of bankruptcies."