The threat of insolvency proceedings against a corporate debtor can greatly assist a creditor's primary objective of getting paid, preferably in advance of everyone else. This is particularly so where the debtor is prevaricating but there is no genuine dispute that the sum in question is due and owing. Although the courts decry the use of the winding-up procedure as a means of debt collection, it is often a very effective tool.

Consider the following when faced with a corporate debtor who is refusing, without genuine reason, to settle its debts:

Introduction

Following the administration proceedings recently instituted against a number of UK entities (Affected Companies), many counterparties (Counterparties) may wish to terminate transactions under the TBMA/ISMA Global Master Repurchase Agreement (GMRA) entered into between them and Affected Companies.

In Bridge Trustees Limited v Noel Penny, Judge Purle QC, sitting as an additional Judge of the High Court, held that the Court could use its inherent jurisdiction to permit an independent trustee to distribute surplus in a scheme that was winding-up. Under the Pensions Act 1995, an independent trustee is appointed to exercise powers otherwise conferred on the employer where an insolvency practitioner begins to act in relation to a company.

Where a receiver of an insolvent company brings an unsuccessful claim, a personal costs order will not be made against the receiver unless there are exceptional circumstances making it just to do so.

One pioneer in this area is Toby Duthie, the founder-director of Forensic Risk Alliance, a forensic accounting and investigations business. Duthie became familiar with the US litigation system while assisting European companies responding to US-based litigation. Duthie recognised that there were many differences between the US and the various EU legal systems. For example, unlike in the UK, the application of contingency fees to plaintiff actions is permissible in the US (see above).

In Franses v Al Assad – Butterworths Law Direct 26.10.07 a freezing order was granted against the first respondent, principally in respect of £6.5m that formed part of the proceeds of sale of a property that had allegedly been owned by him. The first respondent applied to discharge the freezing order.

The judgment of the Commercial Court in WASA and AGF v Lexington shows that a “follow settlements” clause in a reinsurance contract will not obviate the need for the reinsured to demonstrate that an inwards settlement falls within the terms and conditions of its outwards reinsurance. Partner Michael Mendelowitz reviews the judgment.

The company, through its receivers, brought and prosecuted an unsuccessful claim against the defendants. The claim was financed from funds subject to the receivers’ control but the receivers had no beneficial or personal interest in those funds or the outcome of the proceedings. The first defendant sought to recover his costs of the proceedings from the receivers from funds realised in the course of the receivership on the basis that they were the real claimants, and had conducted the proceedings for the benefit of themselves and the bank that had appointed them.

Several tort claims were made against T & N Limited (“the Insured”) arising out of its use of asbestos. As a consequence it became unlikely to be able to pay its debts. Administrators were appointed for the purposes of approving a scheme of arrangement under section 425 of the Companies Act 1985.

Upon receiving notice of a debtor’s bankruptcy case, the prudent debt collector typically files a proof of claim, in the hope of receiving some distribution from the debtor’s bankruptcy estate. Absent a fraudulent claim by the debt collector, the Bankruptcy Code specifically provides for the filing of claims against the debtor’s estate. So how could a debt collector be sued for doing what the Code allows? It could happen if debts a collector actually holds are barred from enforcement under a state statute of limitations.