In Purewal v Countrywide Residential Lettings Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1122, the receivers of a property did not make an insurance claim in relation to damage to the property. The mortgagor of the property (a bankrupt) repaired the property himself. He brought an action against the receivers for breach of duty by failing to make an insurance claim, claiming damages for the cost of the repairs.
Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, No. 14-103 (previously described in the October 2, 2014, Docket Report)
Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935 (previously described in the July 1, 2014, Docket Report)
Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, No. 14–116 (previously described in the December 15, 2014, Docket Report)
On June 9, 2014, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (“Executive Benefits”)1 that resolved a fundamental bankruptcy procedural issue that had arisen in the wake of Stern v.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) v Saad Investments Company Limited (SICL) and Singularis Holdings Ltd (SHL)involved an application by PwC for the setting aside of orders made by the Supreme Court of Bermuda in favour of the liquidators that required the production of documents relating to SICL and SHL. Included among the grounds on which PwC relied to set aside the order were that:
A case recently heard in the UK suggests that, in certain circumstances, a claim for conversion of assets may be brought against administrators and liquidators of a company. While the claim did not succeed on the facts inEuromex Ventures Ltd & Anor v BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory & Ors [2013] EWHC 3007 (Ch), the case illustrates that claimants may bring a proceeding on the basis of alleged acts of conversion by a company's liquidators and administrators.
In our December 2012 insolvency update we reported on CP Asset Management Ltd v Grant, in which the High Court upheld a creditors' resolution to appoint new liquidators. The High Court found that a resolution should only be set aside when it was found that the prejudice to creditors was unreasonable. In the High Court, the minority of creditors who voted against the resolution were unable to e
Rowmata Holdings Limited (in liquidation) (RHL) & Anor v Hildred & Ors [2013] NZHC 2435 involved a sale and purchase agreement whereby land was sold to two trusts, subject to finance. RHL (a company incorporated by the purchasing trusts) claimed and received a GST refund for the purchase. However, on settlement date, RHL defaulted on the purchase, went into liquidation, and the GST refund became repayable to the Inland Revenue Department (IRD).