Over recent years I have been astounded that certain professionals, including accountants, insolvency practitioners (IPs) and solicitors, appear unable to recognise a conflict of interest if it were to stand up and slap them in the face.

Cynically, one could suggest that the blinkers have been on because it serves the interests of the professional concerned. Ignoring a conflict of interest is a fundamental breach of professional ethics, not something that can be brushed under the table for pure personal financial gain.

The Court of Appeal has released an important decision for landlords and tenants concerning applications for consent to assign a lease, overturning the High Court's earlier decision in No.1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd.

The Court of Appeal decided that one bad reason for a landlord refusing its consent will not render the entire decision to withhold consent unreasonable, so long as there are other reasons for the refusal which are good and free-standing.

Key points

• The High Court struck out a claim by a liquidator who had already brought a claim arising from the same facts against the same defendants.

• The court relied on the fact that the economic benefit of pursuing the claim would accrue only to the liquidator.

The Facts

Key points

• To attribute a director’s fraud to a company, the company must be a one-man company

• A one-man company requires no innocent directors or shareholders

The Facts

Singularis Holdings Ltd (the “Company“) was set up to deal with the personal assets of Mr Al Sanea. Mr Sanea was at all the times the sole shareholder of the Company, though he was only one of a number of directors of the Company.

The facts

A liquidator pursued a claim against a former director of a company, that the transfer of the company’s trading inventory in satisfaction of money owed to the former director was a transaction at an undervalue and/or a preference.

An attempt was made to grant floating charge security over the inventory, which the court found was void as it was granted for existing liabilities, at a time when the company was insolvent, to a connected party.

The insolvency of Carillion has placed into sharp relief the difficulties faced by those both up and down the contractual chain for a construction project when one part of that chain becomes insolvent and the ultimate supplier of goods and materials on site has not been paid.

There was a magical place that’s now in administration. It’s called ‘Toys R Us’, Toys R Us’, Toys R Us’.

Key points

• Care should be taken to ensure that finance documents clearly and specifically set out the intention of the parties.

• Lenders should ensure that charges created in security documents are not invalidated or altered by provisions of other finance documents.

Facts

In January 2018 the English High Court considered whether it had jurisdiction under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) to extend a temporary stay on the commencement of enforcement action in respect of English law debt obligations owed by a foreign debtor so that in effect the stay became permanent, or whether such a permanent stay would breach the long established rule in Gibbs[1](whic

The recent judgment in Phones 4U Ltd (in administration) v EE Ltd [2018] EWHC 49 (Comm) has highlighted the need for care when communicating the reasons for terminating a contract. In this case EE, as a result of failing to identify a repudiatory breach as the grounds for terminating its trading agreement with Phone 4U, was precluded from later pursuing a common law claim for damages.

Background