The Jackson reforms to no-win no-fee agreements and the UK government's proposal to ban general damages for minor personal injuries have sent many UK firms into a tailspin.

The English High Court in Powertrain Ltd, Re [2015] EWHC B26 considered the issue of whether a liquidator should be authorised to effect further distributions in favour of a company's known creditors without regard to possible further claims that could emerge against the company. 

The Court noted that there is a balance to be struck between the desirability of distributing assets to known creditors sooner rather than later and the potential injustice of leaving someone who has a valid claim with no effective remedy.

In the recent case of Queensland Mining Corporation Ltd v Butmall Pty Ltd (in liq), the Court held that the liquidators' relationship with a major creditor of the company in liquidation (Butmall) did not per se amount to a conflict of interest. 

Butmall applied to have its liquidators removed as they were the auditors of its major creditor (QMC), against whom Butmall purported to have considerable counterclaims.

In March 2013, four portable gas turbines worth about AU$50m had been leased to Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (Forge) by GE International Inc (GE) as lessor.  In February 2014 and March 2014 Forge was placed in administration and liquidation respectively.

The sole role of ICS, the company at issue in the recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 106, was to be the trustee of the similarly named ICS Trust.  Previous litigation had confirmed that the trust was not a sham and that all ICS's assets were trust assets.  In the present decision, the judge held that all expenses incurred by ICS were expenses incurred as trustee, and therefore ICS (and the liquidator) had a right to be indemnified for those e

Can’t get no satisfaction? Sometimes you can! Would you prefer to have security to cover a debt or the cash in the bank, challenges?

Obtaining Decree

In most circumstances, court proceedings will need to be raised by creditors to recover outstanding sums owed. Depending on the amount due, the action will be a Small Claim (up to and including £3,000) a Summary Cause (over £3,000 and up to and including £5,000) or an Ordinary Action (over £5,000). 

After obtaining a Decree (or judgement in England) there are a number of steps that can be taken, if the debtor does not make payment, to recover the outstanding debt. In Scotland this process is known as “diligence”. 

It was anticipated that more radical thoughts would emerge from Lord Justice Jackson’s latest speech last night to the Insolvency Practitioners’ Association on the subject of rolling out more fixed costs, and so it proved.

In the case of Bibby Factors Northwest Limited v HFD Limited and MCD Group Limited the Court of Appeal has ruled that there is ordinarily no duty on a company whose debt has been purchased (the Debtor) to inform the purchasing company (the Funder) of any pre-existing contractual arrangements it has with the company assigning the debt (the Assignor).  If the Funder wants this information it must directly request it.

Implications

Torchlight was a private equity fund investing in distressed assets. One of its investments was the purchase of a debt from Bank of Scotland International totalling $185m, of which Torchlight had repaid all but $37m.  Being in a difficult liquidity position to pay off the debt, Torchlight sought bridging finance from a Mr Grill.  Torchlight and Mr Grill entered into a 60-day contract in which Mr Grill would provide $37m to discharge the debt.