FMLC has written two letters to Treasury regarding bank recovery and resolution:

Credit Today reports that recent statistics from the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AiB), the government agency that administers the insolvency regime in Scotland, have revealed that:

Following on from our earlier advice on enforcing money judgments, Walker Morris’ banking litigators answer some more frequently asked questions.

Client Question 3

I have heard that I can enforce a money judgment via a third party debt order or an attachment of earnings.  What are these and what are the advantages/disadvantages?

Walker Morris Answer

The High Court in London gave judgment on parts A and B of the Lehman Waterfall II Application on 31 July 2015.  The application is part of the ongoing dispute as to the distribution of the estimated surplus of more than £7 billion in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

On 31 July 2015, the English High Court delivered its judgments in the ‘Waterfall IIA’ and ‘Waterfall IIB’ cases. The decisions are important to stakeholders in determining key questions about how, following payment in 2014 of all the provable claims, the estimated £7.39-billion surplus (the ‘Surplus’) in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (‘LBIE’) will be shared amongst them. For others, the decisions may be of general interest in probing some rarely aired legal issues relating to the lower levels of the insolvency payment waterfall.

The Court of Appeal in London today gave judgment in the Waterfall I Appeal, a dispute as to the distribution of the estimated £7 billion surplus of assets in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

LBIE entered administration on 15 September 2008 and has now paid its unsecured creditors 100p for every £1 owed.  The Waterfall I Appeal addressed some of the key issues as to who should receive the surplus, which we discuss below.

Currency Conversion Claims

The recent appeal to the High Court in Woolsey v Payne [2015] EWHC 968 (Ch), from the Chief Registrar in insolvency proceedings, considered the application of sections 16B and 74(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which relate to the enforceability of loans made for business purposes and/or in the course of a business.

Key Point

A distressed debt purchaser may be able to rely on misrepresentations made by the borrower to the original lender in published documents to recover loss.

The Facts

An Irish investment company ("Taberna") claimed damages for misrepresentations made by or on behalf of a large Danish bank ("Roskilde"), in investor presentation documents and annual results, which induced Taberna to enter into a secondary market purchase of subordinated notes originally issued by Roskilde.

The Decision

After a stream of successes for lenders in valuation claims against valuers in recent times, the recent success for a valuer in an application for summary judgment in the case of Tiuta International Ltd (in liquidation) v De Villiers Chartered Surveyors Ltd offers some comfort to valuers. It demonstrates the courts’ unwillingness to follow creative attempts by lenders to establish a cause of action by disregarding the established legal principles in respect of causation in valuation claims.  

Mr and Mrs D (the “Second and Third Defendants”) owned and controlled Stoke Place Hotel Ltd (the First Defendant) and were also major shareholders of DHL (a hotel company) which went into administration in September 2012 (the “Administration”).