The court will not always set aside a property transfer order in matrimonial proceedings where the party transferring the property, as part of a clean break order, becomes bankrupt shortly afterwards, and there are allegations of lack of consideration or transfer at an undervalue.

The lengthening of the restoration period for dormant companies may make a solvent liquidation an attractive option for some companies. James Stonebridge examines the impact of changes introduced under the Companies Act 2006.

Summary

The Pensions Regulator intends to issue its first financial support direction (FSD) against the Bermudan-based Sea Containers Limited (SCL), which is currently restructuring under the US Chapter 11 bankruptcy process.

MB had been the secured tenant of a property in which she lived with B, and which she had bought at a substantial discount. The property was conveyed into the joint names of MB and B as joint tenants. Although MB’s mortgage company had insisted the property be in joint names, she claimed that the intention had always been that B would only have a minimal interest in it. He had made no contribution to the purchase price, mortgage repayments or household expenses. When MB had ascertained the effect of the joint tenancy, she gave notice of severance to B.

A husband and wife jointly owned their property. In matrimonial proceedings, the husband was ordered to transfer his interest in the property to the wife. Following his bankruptcy, the husband’s trustee applied to set aside the property transfer on the basis that it had been made at an undervalue, and the wife had given no consideration in money or money’s worth within the meaning of s339 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The wife contended that the fact that she had foregone ancillary relief claims was capable of amounting to consideration.

The bankrupt’s trustee applied for a possession order of his home. The bankrupt unsuccessfully appealed his bankruptcy, the order in litigation that had led to his bankruptcy and the possession order, but he refused throughout to give up possession and applied for a committal order. The court found the bankrupt in contempt of court for failing to give possession and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment.

For lawyers dealing regularly with commercial secured lending, the requirement to register company fixed and floating charges has long been fraught with tension. It is a commercial necessity for charges over a company's assets to be registered in a publicly available register. Prospective creditors need to be able to establish how far the company's assets have been secured and are available to meet its commitments. Failure to register will result in the charge being invalid against any liquidator, administrator or creditor of the company if the company becomes insolvent.

In proceedings commenced by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the UK High Court ruled in December 2004 that Adrian Sam & Co (ASC) and John Martin, one of ASC’s two partners, were knowingly involved in the UK activities of an illegal overseas investment firm (a boiler room) and they were ordered to pay £360,000 (approximately $700,000) to 63 investors involved in the boiler room scam. A bankruptcy order was granted against John Martin in August 2006.

The bank took a charge on the borrowers’ property. In January 1992, it demanded payment of the balance due under the secured facilities. In June 1992, it made a further formal demand specifically relying on the mortgage. One of the borrowers was subsequently made bankrupt. Periodically, the bank informed the borrowers that they continued to be liable and made demands for payment and referred to the mortgage.

The claimant obtained a judgment against the defendant for breach of a guarantee. The defendant entered into an IVA with his creditors, which included his liability to the claimant. The defendant paid the judgment sum to the claimant, but not the interest awarded on it. The claimant contended that the award of interest was a post-IVA claim, and threatened to bankrupt the defendant which would lead to a termination of the IVA. The defendant applied for a stay of execution of the interest part of the judgment, on the ground that it was within the IVA.