In recent years, regulators from across the professional spectrum have invested heavily in devising new procedures for handling complaints. Often, these new procedures seek to better serve the consumer by being more straightforward and more efficient. Insolvency regulators are the latest to grasp this nettle.
Regulating IPs
Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited (“DSWC”) and Michael Sullivan and Bernard Freeman (trading as ‘Satellite Services’) v Financial Services Authority
Summary
In a judgment only recently published via the Building Law Reports, the High Court has ruled that a winding up procedure applicable to companies should not be used where there is a triable issue as to the validity of an adjudicator’s decision relied on as evidence of a company being unable to pay its debts: Towsey v. Highgrove [2012] EWHC 2644 (Chancery Division).
Background
VLM Holdings Limited –v- Ravensworth Digital Services Limited [2013] EWHC 228 (Ch)
Précis – In February 2013, the High Court ruled that businesses are permitted to use software under a sub-licence if the head licensee’s business is terminated or becomes insolvent. This ruling, however, is dependent upon the “scope of authority” given to the sub-licensor by the head licensor.
What?
In Hamilton v Hamilton [2013] EWCA CIV13 the Court of Appeal was asked to decide on whether it was appropriate to vary the terms of a Consent Order which provided for payment of a lump sum by a former wife to her former husband.
The Order required the wife to pay her husband £450,000 in 5 payments.
The wife paid a total of £240,000 by which time her business had been placed in administration and she was unable to make any further payments.
Matthew Purdon Henderson v. Foxworth Investments Limited and 3052775 Nova Scotia Limited
Inner House case of some complexity in which the Liquidator of the Letham Grange Development Company sought reduction of a security over the Letham Grange resort near Arbroath. The case involves a number of companies all controlled by a Mr Liu and his family.
Share purchase agreements often include indemnities or covenants to pay designed to protect the buyer for a period after completion where some unquantifiable liability is anticipated that will impact on the value of the company being acquired. This is particularly so in the case of unpaid tax.
On 8 March 2013 the Insolvency Service released details of a director's disqualification undertaking given by a John Boyd Blackwood, a Director of a rural business in Midlothian. He had given the undertaking not to act as a director of a limited company from 15 March 2013 for five years.
Sale at an undervalue; time for presenting a petition; implied term avoids manifest injustice; complying with time limits; order for sale threshold; Wragge & Co's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.
Sale at an undervalue
In Butterfield Bank (UK) Ltd v Philip and others, the bank sought summary judgment against four guarantors of a bank facility. It was alleged that the bank had sold a property at a £500,000 undervalue.
Hackney Empire Ltd v Aviva Insurance Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1716 concerned the issue of whether a guarantor will still be liable when there are additions or alterations in respect of the original contract. Hackney Empire Limited (HEL) had entered into a contract with Sunley Turiff Construction Limited (STC), under which STC was to restore the Hackney Empire Theatre in London. STC's performance was guaranteed by Aviva Insurance Limited (Aviva) through a bond executed prior to the construction contract being signed.