The Scottish Government launched a consultation on the question of the reform of Scotland’s bankruptcy law earlier this year, and a lengthy and detailed consultation paper was released.  Those of us who have heard the Accountant in Bankruptcy speak at conferences and the like over recent months eagerly awaited a discussion document which would reflect her guarded admission that things had perhaps swung rather too far in favour of debtors, and the time was right to try to redress that balance by looking towards the impact of debt on creditors.

KEY POINTS

In Blight v Brewster [2012] EWHC 165 (Ch) the High Court allowed a creditor to enforce his judgment debt against a debtor's pension funds. The court followed a 2011 Privy Council case (Tasarruf Mevduati Sinorta Fonu v Merrill Lynch Bank and Trust Company & ors) in holding that it had jurisdiction to do so under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Section 37 provides that the court may appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so.

Raithatha v Williamson (4 April 2012) and Blight and others v Brewster (9 February 2012)

Most pension schemes give the beneficiary an option as to when to start to draw the pension, and whether or not to draw a tax free lump sum. These two cases confirm that a trustee in bankruptcy and a judgment creditor are each entitled to compel a debtor to draw the maximum permitted by the scheme rules, so that the monies realised as a result are available to pay the debt.  

Pension schemes and bankruptcy

On December 29, 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in the chapter 11 bankruptcy case In re Nortel Networks, Inc., holding that the "automatic stay" on creditor collection actions outside the bankruptcy applied to prevent the UK Pension Protection Fund and the Trustee of the UK Nortel Pension Plan from participating in UK pensions proceedings initiated by the UK Pensions Regulator.

In its recent decision in Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc,[1] the Supreme Court ruled in favour of investors, clarifying the limits of the anti-deprivation rule and holding that a commercially sensible transaction entered into in good faith and without the intention to evade insolvency laws should not infringe the anti-deprivation rule.

Background

Thor Maalouf, an Associate in the London Shipping Group, considers some of the issues which may arise where a party to a charterparty becomes insolvent.

INSOLVENCY ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY TERMINATION

Structured finance transaction documents have typically included subordination provisions in their post-default waterfalls, effectively changing a swap counterparty’s right to get paid from above that of the noteholders to below that of the noteholders.

It is an age old problem for creditors who are faced with debtors who ask for more time to pay their debts. The Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 14.9 and 14.10 allow for a debtor, following the admission of their debt, to request time to pay. It is open for a claimant to choose whether or not to accept a defendant’s proposals; if the claimant does not accept the defendant’s proposals, it is for the court to determine the time and rate of payment. The court’s discretion conferred by CPR 14.10 to extend time for payment has not, until now, been examined.

The case of White v Davenham Trust Ltd, has reaffirmed that a creditor can choose its own method of enforcing a debt which has been guaranteed even where it might hold security for that debt.