Claimant Litigant in Person recovers 150 per hour for his time

Spencer and another v Paul Jones Financial Services Ltd (unreported), 6 January 2017 (Senior Courts Costs Office)

Summary

A claimant litigant in person can recover costs at his typical hourly rate (150). Whilst the burden of proving such financial loss lies on the claimant, the burden is not impossibly high.

Facts

Intercreditor agreements between multiple lenders are part and parcel of lending to a company with several tranches of debt. Under section 510 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), “[a] subordination agreement is enforceable in a case under this title to the same extent that such agreement is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” 11 U.S.C. § 510(a) (West 2017).

The sole shareholder of several closely held corporate entities engages in a fraudulent transfer by extinguishing one entity’s right to payment from a third party in exchange for the release of liabilities owed by other entities to that same third party. In Motorworld, Inc. v. William Benkendorf, et al., __ N.J. __ (Mar. 30, 2017), the New Jersey Supreme Court voided such a transfer against a Chapter 7 debtor corporation whose sole asset was a $600,000 loan receivable purportedly cancelled by the release.

The opening of the retail water market next month (April 2017) will change the water sector on a fundamental level with most businesses in England being able to choose their preferred suppliers. There is no doubt that the opening of the market presents both opportunities and risks for water suppliers. The already low margins in the industry will naturally be squeezed through competition, but the race for new business could also drive behaviours that further damage suppliers' profitability.

Potential pitfalls of contracting in the new market

The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017)1 on March 21, reversing the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of an order approving the distribution of the proceeds of settlement of bankruptcy estate causes of action to general unsecured creditors via structured dismissal, with no distribution to holders of priority wage claims.

The Court framed the question presented, and its ruling, very narrowly—twice. First:

In a very recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that a negative inference to an exception to a negative covenant prevented a company from undertaking a proposed restructuring transaction. We find the case unique not because of the result necessarily, but rather because the court used the negative inference to override another express provision in the Credit Agreement.

Although there has been much discussion of the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Marblegate, this article addresses a question other commentators have yet to tackle: namely, how the Second Circuit’s decision impacts the Trust Indenture Act’s protection of guarantee obligations included in an indenture. Below we provide our view on how Marblegate affects indenture guarantees. More specifically, we discuss how the decision is consistent with provisions of the TIA that expressly protect a noteholder’s payment rights under a guarantee.

Synopsis

September 2016

Commercial Litigation

Can a conflicting email and attachment regarding settlement amount to an acceptance, or does it constitute a counter offer?

Summary

In an appeal from the County Court, regarding the forfeiture of a lease, the High Court confirmed that a purported acceptance of a settlement offer was actually a counter offer. In suggesting an alternative payment date, the company had made a counter offer which the other party had not accepted.

Background

The case of Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited (in liquidation) v (1) Gary John Fielding (2) Sally Anne Fielding [2016] determined whether a claim in respect of breach of duty against two directors of Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited (Burnden) was time-barred. The alleged breach of duty was in connection with a distribution in specie. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision and held that section 21 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) applied so that the claim was not subject to the usual period of limitation.

This briefing is the second in a series of 3 briefings about the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 which we will be publishing on the run-up to it coming into force on 1 August 2016.

Click here if you would like to read the first briefing in the series.

The pros and cons every claims professional needs to know