Unsecured general creditors of defunct MF Global, Inc. (other than those of its parent company MF Global Holdings Ltd.) will receive a final payment from the firm, giving them a total recovery of 95 percent of their approved claims, under a proposal made last week by the overseers of the liquidation of the firm and its parent company.

If a director can exercise a right of set-off against a company in liquidation for a debt owed to the director or for a liability of the company to the director (which may be unascertained in amount or contingent), it may help to cancel out or significantly reduce the director’s liability to the company for insolvent trading.

The United States bankruptcy judge overseeing the liquidation of MF Global Inc., approved the trustee’s proposal to pay  all unsecured general creditors $461 million. Once paid, this distribution would result in total distributions to unsecured general creditors of 72 percent of their approved claims.

The New York State Attorney General settled a lawsuit against Ernst & Young related to its involvement in the financial statement preparation of Lehman Brothers Holding, Inc. The NY AG had alleged that the auditing firm had countenanced Lehman’s inclusion of certain repurchase transactions as sales and not as financings, which permitted the firm to remove “tens of billions of dollars” of securities from its balance sheet. According to the NY AG, the repo transactions—known as “Repo 105”—“served no legitimate purpose.

The trustee for the liquidation of MF Global Inc. is seeking permission from the bankruptcy judge overseeing the firm’s dissolution to make a distribution of US $461 million to unsecured general creditors. If approved, this distribution would result in total distributions to unsecured general creditors of 72 percent of their approved claims. To date, the trustee has distributed 100 percent of approved claims of MF Global’s customers (totaling US $6.7 billion), and 100 percent of approved secured, priority and administrative claims.

In Allco Funds Management Limited v Trust Co (Re Services) Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1251, an inter-company loan transaction was challenged by a receiver appointed by the secured creditor to one of the companies. Common directors were involved in the transaction. The issue was whether the directors breached their fiduciary duties entitling the company via the receiver to have the transaction set aside.

The background to the case

A debtor company can seek to have a statutory demand set aside if there is a genuine dispute as to the existence or amount of the debt, or the company has an offsetting claim.

Because the threshold for contesting a statutory demand is relatively low, a creditor may decide it is better to issue the statutory demand for the undisputed portion of the total debt after making an appropriate allowance for the amount of the total debt in dispute or the amount of the alleged offsetting claim.

When a company is facing short term financial difficulties the directors or shareholders may decide to make a loan to the company to pay wages. 

Debts claimed in statutory demands must be due and payable to the creditor named in the statutory demand.

When disputing statutory demands it is common for debtor companies to argue an offsetting claim, so as to reduce or extinguish the amount claimed in the statutory demand.

For there to be a valid offsetting claim there must be ‘mutuality’, meaning that the legal capacities in which both the offsetting claim and the statutory demand debt are each claimed and owed must align.

Six trade associations representing non-dealer swap market participants sent a letter to the Financial Stability Board on November 4, urging the FSB to reconsider its initiative to promote contractual waivers of default rights under industry-standard derivative master agreements. The letter, signed by the Managed Funds Association, the Alternative Investment Management Association Limited, the American Council of Life Insurers, the Association of Institutional Investors, the Commodity Customer Coalition and the Commodity Markets Council, responds to comments made by the FSB in the cons