The court will unravel a transaction where it appears to have been entered into to place assets beyond the reach of creditors.

This was the case in Ambrose sub nom Garwood v Amborse & Ambrose, where the trustee in bankruptcy of Mr Ambrose applied for declaratory relief and an order for the possession and sale of Mr & Mrs Ambrose's property.

In Rhinegold Publishing Ltd v Apex Business Development Ltd, Rhinegold and another company owed debts to the defendant in the sums of approximately £22,000 and £31,000 respectively. The defendant presented a winding-up petition against both companies which resulted in settlement being reached. The settlement provided that the companies would pay off the debts owed in full by monthly payments and that no proceedings would be issued in relation to the debts referred to in the original statutory demand if payment was made.

Where there is no evidence of lack of authority in placing orders which have not been paid, the court refused to allow an injunction to restrain a winding-up petition.

In the matter of A company (2012) (the company), a creditor had issued a statutory demand against it in relation to invoices for advertising placed with it by the company's sales and marketing manager (M) that were unpaid. The company argued that those orders had been placed without its authority and M admitted that she had exceeded her authority in so placing them.

 Valuation evidence

The court has reaffirmed that comparable sales evidence is the best evidence when determining the retrospective valuation of a property.

The Federal Reserve announced the approval of a final rule to implement the Dodd-Frank resolution plan requirement set forth in Section 165(d) (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule requires bank holding companies with assets of $50 billion or more and nonbank financial firms designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council to annually submit resolution plans to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.

On Tuesday morning, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) Board unanimously approved two rules regarding resolution planning: one rule for large bank holding companies and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (“FRB”),1 and the other rule for large banks.2

The FDIC Board approved a final rule on the orderly liquidation process, which was the culmination of a series of rulemaking efforts begun earlier this year. The rule implements several provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act. Title II establishes an “orderly liquidation authority” (the “OLA”) through which the FDIC can be appointed as receiver and liquidate a covered financial company, such as a bank holding company, whose failure threatens to have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the U.S.

The case of White v Davenham Trust Ltd, has reaffirmed that a creditor can choose its own method of enforcing a debt which has been guaranteed even where it might hold security for that debt.

The July 6, 2011 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Board of Directors (the “FDIC Board”) meeting marked the changing of the guard from Chairman Sheila Bair to FDIC Vice Chairman Martin Gruenberg. Chairman Bair’s valedictory meeting was not merely ceremonial; it also covered several key developments regarding the timing of a final rule on resolution plans under section 165(d) of Title I and a final rule on the Orderly Liquidation Authority (“OLA”) under Title II.

A. RESOLUTION PLANS/ LIVING WILLS

The court has a limited discretion not to make a bankruptcy order where the debt is the subject of a statutory demand which has not been paid and is outstanding at the time of the bankruptcy petition hearing.