The case of Re Premier FX Limited (in Liquidation) highlights the potentially dire consequences for a creditor who does not file their proof of debt by a set deadline - and makes clear that mistakenly forgetting to do so is not a sufficient excuse.
Premier FX was in business as a foreign exchange dealer and money transfer agent. Financial advice was sought when it became clear to the (newly appointed) directors that the claims received from customers exceed the balance of the funds held by the company.
The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in Picard v. Citibank, in which the petitioner sought review of a Second Circuit decision on a seemingly obscure point of law: the pleading burden for “good faith” under Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Second Circuit’s decision is part of, and highlights, a larger, systemic problem in the evolution of bankruptcy law over the last decade—the multiplication of trustee-friendly interpretations of the Bankruptcy Code that, when combined, leave innocent subsequent transferees unfairly vulnerable to meritless clawback suits.
A pizza boss has been handed an eight-year director disqualification for failing to maintain adequate records to explain how a £50,000 bounceback loan was used.
R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court [2021] EWHC 3013
The case of Palmer has confirmed that an insolvency practitioner in the role of an administrator can be prosecuted (and therefore personally liable) for a failure to follow correct redundancy procedures prescribed by s194 TULRCA.
Where an individual is found to have acted in breach of s194, they may be personally liable to an unlimited fine (or a fine of up to £5,000 if the offence is committed before 12 March 2015).
The facts
Part 1 of this article considered some of the checks and balances that apply when seeking access to one of the law’s most potent weapons, including the tests the applicant must satisfy, and exceptions that are commonly included in the order made by the court (see ‘Freezing orders: policing the nuclear option (Pt 1)’, NLJ, 7 & 14 January 2022, p15).
Despite calls upon the government to intervene and, later, attempts to sell the business, the South West construction firm Midas has collapsed into administration this week.
The collapse of the business has led to over 300 redundancies, though it is understood that a section of the business (Mi-Space) has been sold, saving over 50 jobs. Concerns have also been raised about the knock-on effort on sub-contractors and connected businesses, many of whom have been left out of pocket through unfulfilled contracts and unpaid invoices.
When the availability of bounceback loans was announced, it was heralded as the way for small businesses to quickly and easily access loans of between £2,000 and £50,000 during the COVID pandemic. Undoubtedly, it has helped a significant number of small businesses to weather the storm that COVID brought on many.
On 25 January 2022, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published draft guidance on how it will approach ‘compromises’ by regulated firms. The guidance is expressed to cover restructuring plans, schemes of arrangement and CVAs.
The judgment in the much-publicised case of Akhmedovav Akhmedov & Ors[i] in April 2021 is a telling example of where the English Courts have exercised wide-reaching statutory powers to set aside or vary dispositions on trust with extra-territorial effect, notwithstanding the assets are held by offshore trustees, outside the Court’s j
A number of key decisions from the English courts in 2021 illustrate the litigation trends that are likely to have implications for the financial services industry in 2022 and beyond (see below “Cases to watch in 2022”).
Market misconduct and mis-selling
In the first of a series of claims issued by ECU Group Plc in relation to alleged wrongdoing in the foreign exchange markets by a number of banks, the High Court held that: