The applicant applied to strike out a winding up petition that had been presented against it. The parties had entered into two construction contracts under which the applicant had subcontracted the fabrication and erection of steelworks to the respondent in relation to two separate sites. The contracts failed to provide an adequate mechanism for payment such that the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (HGCRA 1996) and the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (as amended) applied.

Picard, a trustee in bankruptcy, launched proceedings under the anti-avoidance provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code against Vizcaya, a BVI investment fund which had invested approximately $330m with Bernard Madoff via his New York firm. Prior to his fraud being discovered in late 2008, Vizcaya had been repaid $180m.Picard obtained a judgment against Vizcaya and its shareholders in the New York Bankruptcy Court. The judgment against Vizcaya was for $180m, $74m of which had been transferred to its Gibraltar holdings.

OTL was placed into compulsory liquidation. Prior to this it transferred monies to a trust located in HK of which N was perceived to be the principal trustee. The OR as liquidator applied for an order under s 236(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) that N produce a witness statement with supporting documents in relation to the company’s affairs. The primary question for HHJ Hodge QC was whether s 236(3) of the IA 1986 could have extra-territorial effect as N was resident in HK.

Held

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding at trial of HHJ Bird (sitting in the High Court) that save where there is fraud, a debtor is not legally obliged to volunteer information to an assignee regarding his arrangement with the assignor. The dispute arose because Bibby, a factor (and ‘Assignee’), purchased debts from Morleys Ltd (‘the Assignor’), owed to it by HFD Ltd and MCD Ltd (the ‘Customers’/‘Debtors’). The contract between the Assignor and Customers was such that the latter were entitled to a rebate, at the beginning of each calendar year, on purchases made.

Summary

Having successfully obtained judgment for your client in a case where your firm of solicitors is acting under a conditional fee agreement (CFA), it is only natural that thoughts will turn to the firm’s own impending financial reward. But the terms of a CFA, negotiated at the outset of the case, can prove to be a barrier to their underlying commercial purpose: payment by result.

Section 262(1) of the IA 1986 provides that a debtor, creditor or nominee may apply to the court where: (a) a voluntary arrangement approved by a creditors’ meeting summoned under section 257 unfairly prejudices the interests of a creditor of the debtor, or (b) there has been some material irregularity at or in relation to such a meeting. 

The Government has announced that it will be delaying the proposed changes to Conditional Fee Arrangements ("CFA") and After the Event ("ATE") Insurance, in respect of insolvency proceedings, until 2015.

In its recent decision in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)¹  the Supreme Court resolves the uncertainty where a regulated firm does not properly segregate client monies. The decision has a number of practical implications, not only for the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) but also for the way client monies are held by institutions.  

Background

Many employers dread triggering debts under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 within their defined benefit pension scheme, but in some circumstances it simply cannot be avoided.  Once a section 75 debt has been triggered it is important that the debt is calculated properly.  The Actuary is required to calculate the difference between the value of the scheme's assets and the cost of purchasing annuities to secure all of the liabilities of the scheme.  But what if there is a delay in calculating the debt?  At which date is the Actuary required to ascertain the cost of bu