A recent High Court case involving unlawful loans to directors illustrates the potential pitfalls involved in calculating limitation periods, and the circumstances in which the usual six year statutory limitation period will not apply to a recovery claim against a fiduciary.

Facts

Broadside Colours and Chemicals Ltd was a family firm supplying dyes to the textile trade. The directors were Geoffrey Button, his wife Catherine Button, and their son James Button. Only the father and son were shareholders.

The global crisis and the rights of foreign creditors of Sovereign States

The global financial crisis has been well documented in the press, with one recent headline in The Times reading “Like Iceland, Ireland can refuse to pay up”. Claims that States face bankruptcy not unnaturally raise the alarm bells for the financial markets. Can States be sued if they default in payment? RPC recently enforced a claim against assets of an EU State, as discussed below...

Bankrupt States: A misnomer

In BNY Corporate Trustee Service v Eurosail UK1, the Court of Appeal rejected a “mechanical” definition of balance sheet insolvency.

There remains much economic uncertainty ahead and it seems that insolvency practices are likely to continue to remain important drivers in accountancy firms. However, insolvency practitioners are facing increased regulation and public scrutiny. They need to remain on top of their game to navigate safely through stormy waters, as Ross Goodrich reports.

Background

The much awaited EAT decision inOTG Ltd v Barke and others (formerlyOlds v Late Editions Ltd) was delivered on 16 February. As expected, the EAT has taken the view that an administration cannot amount to “bankruptcy” or “analogous insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of Regulation 8(7) of TUPE. So, on a sale by an administrator (even in a pre-pack administration) TUPE will apply.

In more detail

The full force of TUPE is relaxed in relation to insolvent transfers as follows:

In an apparent case of first impression in Massachusetts, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently held that an allonge must be physically affixed to the original promissory note to be effective.

Generally speaking, Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure state – meaning that lenders can foreclose on mortgages of Massachusetts property without seeking judicial approval beforehand. In certain circumstances, however, a pre-foreclosure judicial proceeding is required solely to determine whether the borrower is in the active military service and entitled to the protections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. §532.

On 21 May 2010, Justice Floyd handed down his judgment in Bloomsbury International Ltd (in administration) v Mark Alan Holyoake.1 The case sheds light on the circumstances in which it is appropriate for a cross-undertaking provided by administrators on behalf of an insolvent company to be fortifi ed by a bank guarantee.

Facts

A Massachusetts trial court has denied a borrower’s request to stop a foreclosure proceeding despite the borrower’s claim that the loan was “unfair” under the Massachusetts consumer protection law, Chapter 93A of the General Laws. In its May 13 decision denying the borrower’s request for an injunction, the court examined a stated income (no documentation) loan and determined that the borrower was not likely to prevail on a claim that the loan featured a combination of four characteristics that qualify as “unfair” under Chapter 93A.

The case of Poulton v Ministry of Justice was decided by the Court of Appeal at the end of last month. The Court decided that a trustee in bankruptcy was left without a remedy against the Court Service when a bankrupt's estate suffered loss following an oversight by the Court Service to notify the Land Registry that a bankruptcy petition had been presented (as it is required to do by rule 6.13 of the Insolvency Rules 1986).

The background