In today’s turbulent economic climate, it is vital for creditors and debtors to understand the precise boundaries of their rights and duties when an enterprise becomes insolvent. Directors, officers and managers must acknowledge those to whom they owe fiduciary duties and fulfill those duties at the risk of personal liability, while creditors evaluate their potential remedies against misbehaving insiders to collect on defaulted obligations.

So, a ruling came out in June that we in The Bankruptcy Cave have been dying to blog about (and not just so we can use the blog title above). Forgive the delay – heavy workloads and summer vacations often preclude timely blog posts. But this one is a doozy, better late than never on this blog post.

The recent case of In re Tousa, Inc. (Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Tousa, Inc., v. Citicorp North America, Inc., Adv. Pro. No. 08-1435-JKO (Bankr. S.D. Fla., October 13, 2009)) has attracted considerable attention – and dread – in the banking and legal communities.

Two recent cases serve as reminders the devil is truly in the details.

Anyone who obtains title insurance, whether as an owner or a lender, should be aware of a recent abrupt and significant change in title insurance practices across the country. Title companies have recently stated that they will no longer delete creditors’ rights exclusions from, or add affirmative creditors’ rights coverage as an endorsement to, any of their issued title policies.

In But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's decision to reject an application to set aside a statutory demand. The appellant had argued (among other things) that an arbitration clause in his agreement with the respondent required their dispute to be referred to arbitration.

The global crisis and the rights of foreign creditors of Sovereign States

The global financial crisis has been well documented in the press, with one recent headline in The Times reading “Like Iceland, Ireland can refuse to pay up”. Claims that States face bankruptcy not unnaturally raise the alarm bells for the financial markets. Can States be sued if they default in payment? RPC recently enforced a claim against assets of an EU State, as discussed below...

Bankrupt States: A misnomer

The case of Poulton v Ministry of Justice was decided by the Court of Appeal at the end of last month. The Court decided that a trustee in bankruptcy was left without a remedy against the Court Service when a bankrupt's estate suffered loss following an oversight by the Court Service to notify the Land Registry that a bankruptcy petition had been presented (as it is required to do by rule 6.13 of the Insolvency Rules 1986).

The background

• Consultation ends September 7 2009
• Likely to re-ignite controversy over 'pre-pack' administrations

New proposals by the Government to improve access to rescue finance for small companies would allow larger or complex businesses to make private applications to the courts for an "administration-type" regime without creditors necessarily knowing. Proposals in the same consultation on lending to insolvent companies could drive up the cost of borrowing, says Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP (RPC), the City law firm.

In a judgment useful to insolvency practitioners, a court has recently confirmed that liquidators are not personally liable for payment of dividends. In Lomax Leisure v Miller and Bramston [2007] EWHC 2508 (Ch) Miller and Bramston faced personal claims on dividend cheques they had cancelled, after receiving a pending application from a creditor whose claim they had rejected. Miller and Bramstom were later replaced by a new liquidator who brought claims in the name of the company and various creditors.