header-logo header-logo

30 July 2010
Issue: 7428 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Insolvency

Picard v FIM Advisers LLP [2010] EWHC 1299 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 216 (Jul) Chancery Division, Companies Court Kitchin J 27 May 2010

Article 21(1)(d) of Sch 1 to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, (SI 2006/1030) (the CBIR), had both a jurisdictional and a discretionary component. The court had to be satisfied that the information sought concerned the debtor’s assets, affairs, rights, obligations or liabilities. If it was so satisfied then it had a discretion to order the delivery of that information. In exercising that discretion it had to have regard to all relevant circumstances and ensure that the interests of the person against whom the order was sought were adequately protected.

When considering whether to make an order under Art 21 of Sch 1 to the CBIR, it was appropriate for the court to have regard to the principles upon which the court would exercise its powers under ss 236 and 366 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The relevant principles in such circumstances were:

(i) the power was conferred to enable the office holder to discover the true facts concerning the affairs of the company so

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll