Introduction
On 29 June 2017 the High Court made an order for costs against the three former directors of Custom House Capital (the “Company”) having already disqualified them from acting as directors for periods in excess of ten years. The judgment was unusual because the order for costs was not just in relation to the legal costs but also for the very significant investigative costs of the Official Liquidator.
Background
The High Court confirmed that it is generally not appropriate to present a winding up petition to recover sums due under a construction contract, particularly where those sums are disputed or there is a legitimate cross claim.
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.
In the recent decision of Re JD (a debtor), the High Court upheld a debtor’s challenge to a lender’s decision to reject a Personal Insolvency Agreement (“PIA”) proposal.
Section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012- 2015 (“the Acts”) provides a new mechanism by which a debtor may seek the Court’s approval of a PIA notwithstanding its rejection by creditors.
This case is particularly significant as:
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:
Introduction
With the commencement of the Companies Accounting Act 2017 (“2017 Act”) on 9 June 2017, the priority of charges in liquidations has been dramatically altered.
Judicial Development