The case of White v Davenham Trust Ltd, has reaffirmed that a creditor can choose its own method of enforcing a debt which has been guaranteed even where it might hold security for that debt.

In Pick v Sumpter and another, the first defendant's trustee in bankruptcy applied for an order for possession of the defendants' matrimonial home. At the hearing in May 2006, the evidence showed that the sum outstanding as at November 2005 was £25,571 but did not take into account legal costs. That sum was an estimate and did not take into account statutory interest on the bankrupt's debts beyond the date of the hearing, solicitor's costs of the possession hearing or any increase or decrease in the trustee's remuneration.

"Leaving the mice in charge of the cheese..." is how one commentator described the now far from unusual phenomenon of the pre-pack administration sale. But what is meant by a "pre-pack"; are they lawful and what is the legitimate area for concern? While they were fairly uncommon in the past, pre-packs now seem to have become all the rage. Why? What scope is there for challenge or review if abuse is suspected?

What is a "pre-pack"?

Where a receiver of an insolvent company brings an unsuccessful claim, a personal costs order will not be made against the receiver unless there are exceptional circumstances making it just to do so.

The claimant obtained a judgment against the defendant for breach of a guarantee. The defendant entered into an IVA with his creditors, which included his liability to the claimant. The defendant paid the judgment sum to the claimant, but not the interest awarded on it. The claimant contended that the award of interest was a post-IVA claim, and threatened to bankrupt the defendant which would lead to a termination of the IVA. The defendant applied for a stay of execution of the interest part of the judgment, on the ground that it was within the IVA.

The full written judgment of Sir Alastair Norris in respect of the sanction of the Part 26A restructuring plan for Amicus Finance PLC (in administration) was belatedly handed down last week. As we reported in August (linked here), Amicus is the first company in administration to implement a Part 26A restructuring plan, which was fiercely contested by one of the creditors of the Group, Crowdstacker.

As we enter the final quarter of what has been a tumultuous year, the UK restructuring market has been open as usual for companies and creditors seeking to use the flexible restructuring implementation process of a Part 26 “scheme of arrangement” or the latest and greatest restructuring process now found in Part 26A of the Companies Act, a “restructuring plan” (or “Super Scheme” as we like to dub it).

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 has introduced a new standalone moratorium procedure for companies.¹ The moratorium is part of a package of significant legislative reforms contained in the Act, intended to enhance the UK’s restructuring rescue culture. These were originally consulted on between 2016 and 2018 and were fast-tracked to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Overview

As we send this final edition of Global Insight for 2018, Rick and I would like to thank you for your continued support of our multi-award-winning Global Restructuring Group. Undeterred by a back-drop of trade tariffs and Brexit, governments and professionals around the world have continued to try to develop laws and protocols to facilitate the best possible recoveries for creditors from cross-border financial distress. Since the dramatic events of 2008, jurisdictions have sought to bolster their insolvency laws, and many, to supplement them with pre-insolvency restructuring options.

The recent case of Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch) (Singularis) is an important decision affecting any institution that handles client payments, including banks. It decided that a stock broker was liable in negligence for having breached its duty of care to its customer, Singularis Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (Singularis), by paying monies out of its client account on the instruction of one of Singularis' directors and its only shareholder, Mr Al Sanea.

Background