This article was first published in the LexisNexis Corporate Rescue and Insolvency Journal (2017) 2 CRI 45.
Key Issues
Original news
Mikki v Duncan [2016] EWCA Civ 1312, [2017] All ER (D) 157 (Feb)
To start, let me introduce some familiar characters. First, an impecunious claimant who has the benefit of after the event (ATE) insurance, but the disadvantage of an incompetent solicitor. Second, a successful defendant with the benefit of a costs order and a final costs certificate, but the disadvantage of a slippery ATE insurer who has avoided the claimant’s ATE policy because of failures by the aforesaid incompetent solicitor. Different ways around this problem have been tried, and generally failed.
In In re NewPage Corporation, et al., Adversary Proceeding No. 13-52429 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 13, 2017), a Delaware Bankruptcy Court applied a unique defense to certain preferential transfers targeted by a liquidating trustee. The defense focuses on a commonly overlooked element of a preferential transfer, section 547(b)(5).
Preference 101
State and federal laws provide numerous protections to secured parties to preserve their interests in collateral. As secured parties well know, however, these protections become more and more limited when the collateral is pledged to multiple secured parties. Issues, like priority of interests and liens, become more prevalent when the collateral at issue falls in value and multiple secured parties are fighting to enforce their interests in order to satisfy their debts.
State and federal laws provide numerous protections to secured parties to preserve their interests in collateral. As secured parties well know, however, these protections become more and more limited when the collateral is pledged to multiple secured parties. Issues, like priority of interests and liens, become more prevalent when the collateral at issue falls in value and multiple secured parties are fighting to enforce their interests in order to satisfy their debts.
- On 29th September 2004 the Trustees of the Ashtead United Charity allocated Mrs Janet Watts accommodation in an almshouse, in fact one of 14 residential flats the Charity owned at Ashstead in Surrey. In May 2015 they issued proceedings for possession based on the allegations that Mrs Watts had acted in an anti-social manner, swearing, spitting, and aggression. This was a breach of the terms of the Appointments Letter under which she was allocated the property.
Key Tool for Non-Bankrupt Licensees
Facts
The appellant is a company trading in electrical goods which regularly supplied Edge Electrical Ltd ('Edge'). Their standard terms provided Edge with a short period of credit before payment was required.