A professional negligence claim against trustees in bankruptcy alleging that they had unnecessarily prolonged the bankruptcies and caused the bankrupts’ loss failed. The Trustees had agreed not to take steps in the bankruptcies while Dr Oraki and her husband made repeated applications to set aside the judgment upon which their bankruptcy orders were made and annul their bankruptcies under s 282(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986, which they eventually succeeded in doing.
'B’ appealed an Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) s 279(3) order suspending her discharge from bankruptcy until ‘T’ confirmed B had complied with her IA 1986 duties. B traded through a company, which entered voluntary liquidation in November 2014. B’s personal guarantee of company debt led to a bankruptcy order in February 2015.
This case arose from the ongoing administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (‘LBIE’). The appeal considered the proper ranking of certain subordinated debt in the insolvency ‘waterfall’, among other matters.
Held
The first issue concerned the construction of debt instruments subordinated to amounts ‘payable in the insolvency’. It was held that such amounts included statutory interest and non-provable debts, and accordingly those liabilities must be met before any balance could be used to pay off the subordinated loans.
The Defendant (‘D’) was a director of the Claimant, (‘RHIL’) and its subsidiary, (‘BTSC’), which provided training courses. In 2010 D appointed MG as administrator of BTSC and MG arranged a pre-pack sale of the business. The purchaser paid nothing for the business but assumed responsibility for the training, thereby limiting BTSC’s liability for course fee refunds.
Pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 a company's liquidator can recover any of the company's property that is transferred after the date on which a winding up petition is issued. This is because s.127 makes any disposition of property (such as land, money and goods) in the period after issue of a winding up petition void.
This article was first published in Insolvency Intelligence 2017, 30(5), 85-87.
In an earlier edition of this publication I identified what appeared to be a growing trend for the making of a draconian form of order suspending the discharge of bankruptcies. This form of order is typically associated with the case of Mawer v Bland where Mrs Justice Rose upheld on appeal the following order made by Chief Registrar Baister:
As Insurers underwriting risks in Spain are aware, the recent financial crisis resulted in a significant increase in claims against directors by trustees appointed when a company enters into an insolvency process. Insolvency proceedings in Spain reach a determination as to the culpability of directors implicated in the company's demise. In this context, the Spanish courts will look at whether the directors were "guilty" or whether the insolvency was "fortuitous". However, not all determinations will express whether the director's conduct was in bad faith or wilful.
The Insolvency Rules 2016 came into force on 6 April 2017 and seek to modernise the insolvency process. These changes were, in part, brought about by the changes to insolvency law and practice as a result of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 ("the Act"). Now is therefore a good time to take stock of the other key changes brought about by the Act that were anticipated to impact on D&O claims.
De Le Cuona v Big Apple Marketing Ltd, Chancery Division, 12 April 2017
Easement to park; illusory; true construction of a deed