Summary: Political uncertainty, increasing inflation, threat of interest rate rises and insecurity of overseas investment. Should real estate lenders remind themselves of the enforcement available if things go awry? Much has changed since the 2008 financial crisis; much for the better. In this article we look at the main enforcement options and suggest some factors that could result in a new approach to restructuring and enforcing real estate loans.

Enforcement Options

Summary

A liquidator rejected creditors’ claims. The creditors successfully appealed that decision and sought the costs of that application from the liquidator personally under rule 4.83 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (as it then was) on the assertion that the reason the liquidator rejected the claims was that they exceeded the value of a potential misfeasance claim against the creditors and he did not want set off to defeat the misfeasance claim.

Creditors’ Case

When reviewing a security for costs application under CPR 25.12, the courts are faced with the challenge of striking a balance between an impecunious claimant’s access to justice and the possibility of a successful defendant being unable to recover their costs. This is because the general rule in relation to costs under CPR 44.2 is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the successful party.

On 28 March 2017, the Enactment of Extra-Statutory Concessions Order 2017[3] was made which, amongst other things, enacts ESC3.20. The Order came into force on 6 April 2017.

ESC3.20 disapplied the clawback of input tax credit for an insolvent business that has not paid (or not fully paid) the consideration for a supply. New section 26AA of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 gives broadly the same effect as ESC3.20 in that it “turns off” the disallowance of input tax in cases of non-payment of consideration if:

In a judgment that will undoubtedly impact what has become fairly common practice when filing notices of intention to appoint an administrator (“NOITA”), the Court of Appeal has held in JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Ltd v Davis Haulage Ltd[1] that a company seeking to give notice of intention to appoint under paragraph 26 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”), and to file a copy o

On 6 April 2017, the Insolvency Rules 2016 came into force. The new rules aim to modernise the insolvency process; and make it more efficient. Physical meetings, as the default decision making process, have been abolished. Where the debtor ‘customarily’ communicated with a creditor by way of email notices can be served by email under deemed consent, rather than through the post. The rules also introduce the use of websites to publish notices, without the need to inform creditors of any postings.

This case raised the issue of when a company in financial distress (or the directors of that company) should issue a Notice of Intention to Appoint an Administrator (“NOITA”) which affords a moratorium under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”).

A question which the court was asked to consider recently was:

Does a conditional fee agreement continue to apply if the claim is amended part way through the proceedings?

Key Points 

• Claims against Kaupthing could not be pursued in the English courts

• No implied restriction on jurisdictional effect under the Winding-up Directive

• Position analogous to Judgments Regulation and Insolvency Regulation

The Facts

The Facts

A debtor entered into an IVA with his creditors. He complied with the terms of the IVA and a certificate of compliance was issued by the IVA supervisor. Subsequently, the debtor received two PPI settlement payments from banks. The supervisor applied to court for directions as to whether the payments were caught by the trust created by the IVA. The Deputy District Judge held not and the High Court agreed on appeal. The supervisor was given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Decision