A great deal of insolvency litigation is funded by non-parties to a claim – for example, by a creditor or an “after the event” (ATE) insurer. Ordinarily such arrangements and their precise terms are confidential and are not required to be fully disclosed to a counterparty in litigation. In the recent case of Re Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) [2017] EWHC 3465 (ch) (“Hellas”), the court considered the extent to which the underlying details of the litigation funders should be disclosed for the purposes of a security for costs application.
There are various ways misconduct can be reported in respect of companies and individuals. Establishing which authority has the power to conduct investigations of wrongdoing depends to a certain extent on the status of the companies and individuals.
The Court of Appeal has helpfully confirmed that a judgment creditor can seek an order appointing a receiver by way of equitable execution where:
- the debtor holds a legal or equitable interest in property; and
- execution against the property is not available at law by one of the usual methods, for instance via the sheriff or by a garnishee order.
There was previously doubt as to whether such a receiver could be appointed where the debtor held a legal, as opposed to an equitable interest, in property.
The High Court has recently expressed concern that distressed borrowers are being duped into paying money to the anonymous promoters of schemes, which purport to protect them from enforcement by lenders but are actually ‘utterly misguided and spurious’.
There are a number of schemes being promoted at the moment that supposedly protect borrowers in arrears from enforcement by their lender.
The recent Court of Appeal case of JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Limited v. Davis Haulage Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 267 has set out the importance of there being a settled intention to enter administration and indicated that this is a pre-requisite to an out of court appointment being validly made.
Dickinson v NAL (Realisations) Staffordshire Ltd is a useful case on how directors’ duties are looked at following a formal insolvency and ways in which an office holder can challenge transactions if there is evidence of wrongdoing or a concerted strategy to frustrate creditors’ recourse to a Company’s asset base which would ordinarily be available to them in an insolvency, subject of course to valid security and/or third party rights.
An employment tribunal has recently confirmed that employees who have been unfairly dismissed from an insolvent employer can bring an action against a connected successor company.
The tribunal held that there was a ‘commonality of ownership’ between the original and successor companies and that it was correct as a matter of public policy that employees should be able to sue the newco born from the ashes of the insolvent company.
The recent case of Re Newtons Coaches Limited [2016] EWHC 3068considered whether a partnership falls within the remit of s.216 Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 86”).
Simple retention of title clauses are commonplace and generally effective in contracts for the sale of goods. However, extending their effect to the proceeds of sale of such goods requires careful drafting.
The Court of Appeal has provided some further clarity around the creation and effects of fiduciary obligations in relation to such clauses.[1]
Proceeds of sale clauses
In the case of Re BW Estates Ltd the High Court considered the validity of a directors’ out of court appointment in circumstances where there was technically an inquorate directors’ board meeting.