Insolvent trusts – the myth becomes reality is the third in a series of quarterly webinars aimed at providing trustees with a comprehensive overview of various contentious trust topics.

In this webinar we examine the concept of an insolvent trust, provide a summary of the only case addressing this issue (on which our team is acting), outline the developments in relation to the statutory legal position and identify the key issues which trustees need to consider in this scenario.

Key Points

• Reaffirms the importance of considering whether an applicant’s position would be improved by the making a vesting order

• Useful guidance on the extent of the court’s powers when granting a vesting order.

The Facts

Trustees’ Application

Trustees in bankruptcy issued an application for a declaration that a property owned by a company (the Property) was in fact owned by the bankrupt. The trustees contended that the Property had been bought from the sale proceeds of a property owned by the bankrupt’s father, but expressly held on trust for the bankrupt (the Trust Property).

The Facts

Summary

A bankrupt was found to be in contempt of court following years of failing to comply with the terms of multiple court orders compelling him to disclose information about his financial affairs with a view to entering into an IPOA.

The Facts

The Facts

Husband and wife petitioned for divorce in 2008. In January 2009, a statutory demand was served on the husband and a bankruptcy petition was presented in March 2009. In June 2009, husband and wife agreed a consent order whereby the husband was to make periodical payments to the wife and daughter and to repay around £1.4m to the wife.

Summary

The UK Court of Appeal recently confirmed that lawyers (Decherts) could no longer act for a company (Avonwick). Our views on the first instance decision can be found here.

Background

Summary

The insolvency legislation contains an unusual provision pursuant to section 375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 enabling the court to review its own decision. The issue in this case was whether the High Court could review its own decision where that decision was an appeal of a bankruptcy order made by a District Judge in the County Court.

The Facts

The Facts

On 12 September 2012, the joint liquidators of a company brought claims for wrongful trading against its former directors, arguing that they knew (or ought to have concluded) before the date it entered liquidation that the company could not avoid insolvent liquidation. At first instance, Registrar Jones held that the directors were liable for wrongful trading and should pay compensation of £35,000. The directors appealed this decision.

The Decision

Key Points

• Costs incurred in preparing to comply with disclosure orders not payable by liquidators

• Protection for wasted costs should have been sought earlier in the proceedings

The Facts

The Facts

An administrator was appointed over a company out of court and the administration extended on a handful of occasions. The administrator was then replaced by block transfer, but the administration subsequently expired before it was concluded.

The new administrator therefore applied for a new administration order to apply retrospectively from the date of expiry of the old order.