Of general interest is the appeal in the case of Horton v Henry, on which we reported in our January 2015 update. In Horton, the High Court declined to follow a previous ruling, and decided that a bankrupt could not be compelled to access his pension savings to pay off creditors.

On 15 January 2015, it was announced that the bankruptcy creditor petition limit will be increased from £750 to £5,000 following a consultation into insolvency proceedings.

Business Minister, Jo Swinson said:

In Graves v Capital Home Loans Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1297, it was held that the appointment of Law of Property Act Receivers by a mortgagee because the borrower lacked the mental capacity to manage his financial affairs was valid even if the borrower was mentally fit by the time of the appointment. It was further held that the treatment of the borrower by the lender in such circumstances did not give rise to an unfair relationship under ss 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974).

Background

In Spencer Day v Tiuta International Ltd and other [2014] EWCA Civ 1246, the Court held that a creditor who relies on subrogation is still a secured creditor, and therefore cannot be subject to a set off claim for unliquidated damages as per Natwest v Skelton (1993).

Background

Introduction

In this Banking Reform updater we examine the single resolution mechanism (SRM), which together with the single supervisory mechanism (SSM) (Banking Reform updater 10) forms the key pillars of the EU Banking Union.

What is the SRM?

Declining to follow a 2012 decision, the High Court has ruled that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which he was entitled within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986, and so did not form part of the bankruptcy estate.

Background

The process of repossession will involve complex issues of fact and law. Each one is different depending upon the jurisdiction involved, the approach of the operator and the attitude of the relevant authorities.

Information and planning

1. What is the risk if a counter-party is located in an exiting member state?

What might be the funding risk?

A member state exit is likely to result in increased liquidity problems and less available funding as financial institutions manage their exposure to the Eurozone. Businesses may find that traditional sources of finance (loans, bonds etc) are less easy to obtain or raise.

Intra group funding may also be problematic if there are intra-company loans to subsidiaries located in risk member states and those subsidiaries are having difficulty meeting their payment obligations under such loans.

In Credit and Mercantile Plc v (1) Kaymuu Ltd (2) Kevin Michael Wishart and (3) Ian Mark Defty (as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Mr Sami Muduroglu) [2014] EWHC 1746, the court held that whilst a beneficial interest was created in favour of Mr Wishart, it did not take priority to the claimant’s charge.

Background