At the end of last year judgment was handed down by Pat Treacy J in a matter notable for the unusual attitudes of a director towards the company’s director’s loan account. By the time the company entered into administration, the loan account was overdrawn to the tune of £1.35m, with the director having withdrawn funds to (amongst other things) finance the purchase and maintenance of a personal yacht.

The city impounded the debtor’s vehicle for nonpayment of traffic fines. The debtor filed a chapter 13 petition and demanded turnover of the car. Section 362(a)(3) stays any act to “exercise control over property of the estate.” Section 542(a) requires one in possession of property of the estate to deliver it to the trustee. The most natural reading of section 362(a)(3) is that it prohibits affirmative acts that alter the status quo and does not impose an affirmative obligation on a party holding property of the estate to turn it over. Section 542(a) performs that function.

In light of a number of recent High Court decisions, Andy Creer considers the approach of the Court when considering an application for a speedy trial.

As part of a complex series of related transactions, the debtor entered into a note purchase agreement with an investment bank. The agreement specifically disclaimed that the bank was acting as the debtor’s agent or owed the debtor any fiduciary duty. The note proceeds were to be used to pay the debtor’s shareholders to purchase their shares. The investment bank paid the proceeds directly to the shareholders. The trustee sought to avoid the payment as a fraudulent transfer.

This note considers the way in which the practice directions governing insolvency proceedings have evolved during 2020.

In this article, we examine the repercussions of Debenhams Retail Ltd, Re [2020] EWCA Civ 600

Background

 The receivership debtors ran a Ponzi scheme. Acting under the state Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, the receiver sued the debtors’ bank to avoid bank deposits as transfers made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. The UFTA defines “transfer” as any mode, direct or in

Oliver Hyams and Amy Held investigate the recent case of Islandsbanki Hf & Ors v Stanford [2020] EWCA Civ 480.

Background

Adjudication is a quick and comparatively cheap method of dispute resolution and for those reasons is attractive to insolvent companies seeking to recover debts. However, a respondent was likely to be able to restrain the insolvent company from referring the matter to adjudication on the basis that it would be futile to do so, since any positive decision was unlikely to be enforced as a result of the very fact of the company’s insolvency. Therefore, any award lacked practical utility. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale, that is no longer the case.

Following the posting of the article I co-wrote with Morayo Fagborun-Bennett on the Recovery of Commercial and Residential Rent Arrears, there have been a couple of developments of note.