There are some strict rules which apply when an individual is made bankrupt. Some of them were brought to the fore recently in the case of Floyd Foster v Davenport Lyons (A Firm) in the Chancery Division EWHC 275 (Ch).

The main cardinal rules are:

The recent case of F Options Ltd v Prestwood Properties Ltd concerned the setting aside of a transaction as a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

A preference arises when a company's creditor is put in a better position than they would otherwise have been in the event of the company's insolvency. Transactions may be a preference whether or not the parties are connected, but where it can be shown that there is a connection within section 249 of the Insolvency Act 1986, two important advantages are gained:

The law allows any person to be treated as a director even though that person has not been formally appointed as a director. Such directors are known as de-facto directors. By contrast, a de jure director is a person who has been validly appointed as a director.

The recent case of Re Snelling House Ltd (In Liquidation) [2012] EWHC 440 (Ch) serves as a useful reminder to consider possible claims against de-facto directors who may be acting under the wrong impression that they are beyond reprehension.

The facts

BESTrustees v Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander [2012] EWHC 629 (Ch) (High Court Chancery Division 16 March 2012)

Background

The long awaited judgment in The Commissioners for her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v. Football League Limited, on the so called “football creditors’ rule” (the “Rule”) has been given.

This article only concerns itself with the issue of whether the Rule was or was not considered void on the grounds that it was contrary to the pari passu principle and the anti-deprivation rule and not on the fairness of the Rule itself.

Leisure Norwich (2) Ltd & Others v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited & Others - [2012] EWHC 951(Ch). Incurring liabilities to third parties is often necessary in order to carry out an effective administration of an insolvent company.

The UK Supreme Court's decision in Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) caps the extensive litigation which developed in the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (Lehman Brothers) almost four years ago.

It all began on 15 September 2008 when Lehman Brothers went into administration following what the Courts have referred to as its performance failures on 'a truly spectacular scale', foremost of which was the failure to protect its clients' monies.

It is looking increasingly likely that 2012 will be another difficult year for the automotive sector, leading to a decline, not only in vehicle sales, but also in goods and services supplied to the sector. As a result, businesses may experience cash flow problems and increased creditor pressure to pay invoices.

We previously reported on Raithatha v Williamson (4 April 2012) where the High Court held that a bankrupt’s right to draw a pension was subject to an income payments order (“IPO”) even if the individual had yet to draw his pension. This judgment represented a significant departure from previous practice under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 which protected future pension rights from IPOs and distinguished them from pensions in payment. It also effectively allowed a trustee in bankruptcy to compel a bankrupt to draw pension against his wishes.

Regulation 7 of TUPE states that a dismissal will be automatically unfair if the main reason for dismissal is the transfer itself, or a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce (‘ETO reason’). This provision has caused some uncertainty where employees are dismissed by an administrator in order to make a business more attractive to a prospective (but as yet unknown) purchaser.