The High Court gives an insolvency exclusion a wide scope and declines to apply narrow interpretation rules for exclusions in insurance contracts in Crowden and another -v- QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd [2017] EWHC 2597 (Comm).
Courts and professionals have wrestled for years with the appropriate approach to use in setting the interest rate when a debtor imposes a chapter 11 plan on a secured creditor and pays the creditor the value of its collateral through deferred payments under section 1129(b)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Bankruptcy Code. Secured lenders gained a major victory on October 20, 2017, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a market rate of interest is preferred to a so-called “formula approach” in chapter 11, when an efficient market exists.
Here is the scenario: You are a creditor. You hold clear evidence of a debt that is not disputed by the borrower, an individual. That evidence of debt could be in the form of a note, credit agreement or simply an invoice. You originated the debt, or perhaps instead it was transferred to you — it does not matter for this scenario. At some point the borrower fails to pay on the debt when due. For whatever reason, months or even years pass before you initiate collection efforts.
A fundamental consideration when embarking on any litigation is whether the defendant will be able to pay. In most cases, this is really a question of whether the defendant is insured (although in some cases a defendant may be uninsured and yet still have the means to pay).
What happens if the defendant is insolvent?
On 1 October 2017, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (Protocol) will come into force. It will apply to all debt claims where:
- the creditor is a business (including sole traders and public bodies)
- the debtor is an individual (including sole traders), and
- no other specialised Protocol applies.
Why is this new Protocol being introduced?
The express purpose of the new Protocol is to:
Breyer Group Plc v RBK Engineering Ltd
The High Court's recent judgment in Breyer Group Plc v RBK Engineering Limited [2017] EWHC 1206 provides a timely reminder for parties to construction contracts of the appropriate (and inappropriate) uses of winding-up petitions.
The case concerned a successful application made by Breyer Group PLC (Breyer) for an order preventing RBK Engineering Limited (RBK) from continuing with a petition to wind up Breyer on the basis of a disputed debt.
How did the dispute arise?
In summary:
In Randhawa and Randhawa v Turpin and Hardy [2017] the Court of Appeal considered the comparatively simple question of whether the sole director of a company with articles that required two directors for a board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22(2) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (paragraph 22(2)). The complicating feature was that, whilst 75% of the shares in the company were held by the sole director, the remaining 25% were registered in the name of a long-dissolved Manx company.
Background
Editors’ Note: The Supreme Court’s Jevic ruling last spring remains a treasure trove of bankruptcy theory, suitable for the novice bankruptcy student and highly instructional for those of us who have practiced in chapter 11 for years. We at The Bankruptcy Cave like it so much that we will be offering a few more posts in upcoming weeks on the lower courts’ interpretation of Jevic since the spring, the continued efforts in Delaware to sidestep Jevic, and other important learning from the case.
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