This decision of the Chancery Division is a useful reminder to lenders of the Court’s power to set aside a transaction intended to defraud a creditor under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The Facts

The Defendant, Mr Ahmed, was registered as the proprietor of two properties known as High Elm and Hilltop (the “Properties”). The Claimant advanced monies to be secured over the Properties by second legal charge. The Defendant fell into arrears and the Claimant commenced possession proceedings.

I am often asked “what do you do”? If I reply “a regulatory solicitor”, this inevitably elicits a blank expression from the enquirer (be that a non-lawyer or lawyer), so I go on to the more long-winded version, that I am a criminal solicitor who advises business owners and other stakeholders on how to stay on the right side of the criminal law, and defends them when they get it wrong.

Re Lyondell Chemical Co, et al; Edward Weisfelner, as Trustee of the LB Litigation Trust v LR2 Management K/S [18.09.15]

US Bankruptcy Court confirms that a trustee in bankruptcy could not avoid freight payments made by charterers shortly before they applied for bankruptcy protection.

Implications

The Insolvency Service published its quarterly statistics on company insolvency and individual procedures showing:

Introduction

We recently commented on a Scottish case involving dissolution, disclaimer and restoration (read our Law-Now here). There has now been an English case raising the same issues which on the face of it analyses the same provisions of the Companies Act 2006 (UK wide legislation) in a different way to achieve the same result.

The approach of the courts

Key Point

The High Court has given some guidance on the effect of an order to restore a dissolved company to the register where a secured creditor has rights against that company and there has been a disclaimer by the Crown.

Facts

Key Point

Judgment sets out the rationale behind validating three payments made by a Company after the presentation of a winding up petition.

The Facts

This was the third application made by Sahaviriya Steel Industries UK Limited (the “Company”) in connection with payments made that would require validation under s127 Insolvency Act 1986. The payments were necessary to keep part of its business going pending discussions on sale or restructuring.

The Decision

Key Points

• Court considers the ownership of assets situated at premises owned by the bankrupt in the context of limited relevant evidence
• Court emphasises the importance of joining the correct parties to litigation

The Facts

One of the changes introduced by the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (“SBEE”) which came into force on 1 October 2015 was to allow administrators and liquidators the right to assign their rights of action in respect of fraudulent trading claims, wrongful trading claims, transactions at an undervalue, preferences and extortionate credit transactions.

On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.

The result is clear and not a surprising one. The judgments are less clear however. The Court highlighted the difficulties in developing illegality principles of general application for future cases, but then decided now was not the time to try.