Facts

The husband and wife were directors and shareholders of a company (‘C’). The husband was adjudged bankrupt in June 2014; the petitioners were appointed as his trustees in bankruptcy. Among the assets vested in the trustees under s 306 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), was the husband’s shareholding in C. However, the trustees were not registered as members of C until March 2015.

Facts

Solicitors, Stevensdrake, sought payment of costs from insolvency practitioner, Hunt. As liquidator, Hunt took action against two former administrators of an estate, and retained Stevensdrake for assistance. Early in their relationship, the parties agreed that Hunt would not be liable if there were no recoveries, and that the solicitors would be paid when there was a recovery from any source. The parties later entered a conditional fee agreement (CFA) with an express term stipulating that Hunt would be personally liable for unpaid fees.

Facts 

The respondents applied to set aside an order permitting the liquidators to serve the ‘Main Application’ on the respondents out of the jurisdiction (‘Set Aside Application’). Grounds of the application were: (i) the liquidators could not establish a serious issue to be tried/ reasonable prospect of success on the Main Application; and (ii) the initial without notice application had been procured by misrepresentation and/or material non-disclosure.

Hello everyone,

The Court of Appeal has released a variety of cases this week dealing with such topics as wrongful dismissal, bankruptcy and insolvency, pensions, real estate, and residential landlord and tenant. The most notable decision by far this week is the Groia v. The Law Society of Upper Canada decision in which the court dismissed the member’s appeal from his conviction for professional misconduct. Apparently, according to the Toronto Star, Mr. Groia will be seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, so this long-running saga is not over yet.

Unfortunately for the Landlord community in Canada’s retail space, the flood of retail insolvencies is likely not over. In addition to open speculation about Sears, 2016 has already seen the insolvency of major Canadian retail locations previously occupied by Danier Leather, Aeropostale, PJ Pets, and Goodwill. There are likely more on the horizon.

Does section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986 void payments made by the insolvent company’s bank after the presentation of a winding-up petition but pursuant to payment instructions issued by the company before presentation of the petition?

Hello everyone,

The Court of Appeal had a busy week and released a number of civil decisions, many of which were procedural in nature – extension of time, leave to appeal, limitation periods, Rule 21. One of these procedural decisions was in the Nortel case, in which the court denied leave to appeal Justice Newbould’s trial decision, apparently bringing the matter substantially closer to a conclusion.

Have a nice weekend.

John Polyzogopoulos

Civil Decisions

The serious consequences of an adjudication of bankruptcy against an individual has long justified the strict requirement that bankruptcy petitions be personally served. Rule 6.14 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 requires as much, and says that ‘service shall be effected by delivering to [the debtor] a sealed copy of the petition’. But what constitutes delivery where the debtor declines to accept the petition from the process server?

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.