The Court of Appeal has reiterated some important rules for funders involved in debt purchase. Banking Litigation specialist Alasdair Urwin looks at the recent case of Bibby Factors Northwest v HDF and MCD [1].

Buyer beware

This case concerned a factoring agreement, pursuant to which a funder (Bibby) purchased unpaid invoices from another company (the Assignor), including debts owing from the defendant companies (the Customers).

In Stevensdrake Ltd v Hunt and others ^[1] the liquidator of Sunbow Limited, Mr Hunt, had brought a claim against Sunbow's former administrators. Mr Hunt entered into a conditional fee agreement (CFA) with the solicitors instructed to pursue the claim (Stevensdrake). The CFA stated "if you [Mr Hunt] win your claim, you pay our basic charges, our disbursements and a success fee". A settlement was agreed but one of the former administrators failed to pay the agreed sum.

The definition of a contract for the sale of goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA) is one in which the seller transfers the property in the goods to the buyer for money consideration, i.e. the price.

Under section 49 of SOGA, an unpaid seller can claim for the price of the goods if either: (1) the property in the goods has passed to the buyer; (2) or payment of the price is expressed to be payable on a certain day irrespective of delivery

In Brooks and another v Armstrong ^[1], joint liquidators applied for orders against directors of the insolvent company (the Company) under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act) (the wrongful trading provision) and for remedies to be awarded against delinquent directors under section 212 of the Act.

On 1 April 2015, an estimated 5,000 private landlords across Liverpool were affected by the implementation of a city-wide selective licensing scheme. Whilst Liverpool is the first major city to introduce the scheme city-wide, several local authorities have adopted selective licensing for their boroughs including the London Boroughs of Newham, Hackney, Croydon and Brent. 

Following on from our earlier advice on enforcing money judgments, Walker Morris’ banking litigators answer some more frequently asked questions.

Client Question 3

I have heard that I can enforce a money judgment via a third party debt order or an attachment of earnings.  What are these and what are the advantages/disadvantages?

Walker Morris Answer

The Illinois Supreme Court recently provided certainty to dissolving corporations with respect to the risk of facing a lawsuit even after it has long since dissolved. Illinois permits lawsuits against dissolved corporations for up to five years after the corporation has ceased to exist. The Supreme Court clarified that only those claims that have accrued prior to the corporation's dissolution (i.e., the injury occurred prior to dissolution) may be brought in that five-year period.

The 7th Circuit has again left a disappointed creditor with no recourse because of the creditor's failure to do basic investigation or take steps to protect itself. (On Command Video Corporation vs. Samuel J. Roti, Nos. 12-1351 and 12-1430, January 14, 2013). This case follows other cases in which the 7th Circuit has shown itself decidedly unfriendly to creditors who sought compensation through the courts in failed business ventures but could have, but failed, to prevent their unfortunate situation.

When being sued, corporate and individual defendants should always confirm that the plaintiff has not been previously discharged in bankruptcy and failed to disclose the claim in the proceeding as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In Guay v. Burack, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012), the plaintiff brought numerous claims against various governmental entities, governmental officials and a police officer.

In a recent decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with a situation that is the bane of any commercial and business attorney. A legal document contained an error. But in this case, the error was so extreme and obvious that the court was willing to reform the document to correct the error, in the face of other cases where courts refused to let parties escape from their mistakes. In re: Equipment Acquisition Resources (7th Cir., No. 1103905 decided on August 9, 2012)