Summary

Court of Appeal has confirmed that a bankrupt cannot be compelled to draw down pension rights for the benefit of creditors.

Facts

Following the supportive High Court decision in the case of Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 900 (Ch), the trustee in bankruptcy in this case applied for an order compelling a discharged bankrupt to draw down his pension rights for the benefit of his creditors.

The Facts

The applicants were judgment creditors of a Robert Williams (Robert). They obtained a charging order against Roberts’s beneficial interest in 75% of the shares in a company in administration and eventually became full legal owners of those shares.

I can show that a company is insolvent and that it is reasonably likely that the statutory purpose can be achieved. I can have an administration order, right? Eh, actually no.

Creditors issued applications for administration orders against two hotel-owning companies. The companies sold hotel rooms as leases, which provided for repurchase in certain circumstances.

An attempt to rely on Libyan sanctions as a reason not to pay a debt due fails.

The creditor lent money to a company, guaranteed by the debtor. There was no dispute that the debtor owed the debt, but the debtor contended that to pay it would contravene sanctions in place against Libya. He applied, albeit five months out of time, to set aside a statutory demand served on him for the debt.

At first instance, the Judge granted an extension of time in respect of the set aside application and also set aside the statutory demand, agreeing with debtor’s position.

Having launched the original version three years ago, we have refreshed our Safeguarding Your Business guide as an eBook. The guide assists clients in protecting themselves either proactively or reactively in respect of a counterparty’s insolvency with new sections on trusts and examples of how we have helped, using some of the principles raised.

The Facts

This was an appeal by liquidators to the Court of Appeal from a decision refusing to grant an order that payments made to the respondent directors totalling nearly £450,000 were preferences.

By the time of the appeal, it was accepted that the payments were made within the relevant time and with the requisite intention to prefer.

Previous Decision

Appointment of receivers in respect of a group entity takes “control” of that entity outside the group for tax purposes, but does this decision have more far reaching consequences?

The First Tier of the Tax Tribunal heard appeals against closure notices issued by HMRC denying claims for group relief by a group of companies, including a company over whose assets a fixed charge receiver (FCR) had been appointed (the Borrower).

Key points

• There have been conflicting decisions on whether a person may be made the subject of any income payments order (IPO)
• This case suggests that the court will not make an IPO in respect of unelected pension entitlements

The facts

Key points

Challenging the transfer of assets through ancillary proceedings as transactions at an undervalue remains challenging.

The facts

This case centred around a property in Coventry originally owned and developed by a Mr Singh. After failing to pay his builders a substantial amount, on which he was subsequently bankrupted, Mr Singh charged the property to his father and then his sister-in-law.