There has been recent high-level review of the application of the doctrine of ex turpi causa to claims involving fraudulent directors, in the context of insolvency litigation. The doctrine defined at its simplest is that no action can be founded on illegal or immoral conduct – a legal form of fair play. In October 2014 the Supreme Court heard the appeal in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (Bilta).

In a recent decision, the High Court held that legal advice taken in relation to certain transactions was not protected by privilege, as there was prima facie evidence that the purpose of the advice was to structure the transactions in a way that avoided the client’s liability to pay local authority care charges and/or as a transaction defrauding creditors: London Borough of Brent v Kane [2014] EWHC 4564 (Ch).

Key point

Only a current liquidator or a current creditor has standing in an English liquidation to pursue a claim under  section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 86"). A former liquidator has no standing to apply to court to expunge a proof of debt (Insolvency Rule 4.85).

The facts

Mr. Justice Popplewell recently dismissed the lawsuit filed by liquidators of Madoff Securities International Ltd after a lengthy trial in the High Court through which they were seeking to recover around $50 million. The ruling exonerated the UK defendants including former Bank Medici AG Chairwoman Sonja Kohn and the Directors of Bernard Madoff’s European organisation, including his children Mark and Andrew.

The Court of Appeal recently handed down its much-anticipated judgment in (1) Jetivia S.A. (2) URS Brunschweiler v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) (2013).

The Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld an order refusing to strike out a claim by a “one-man” company in liquidation, which had been the vehicle for a VAT fraud, against its former directors and overseas suppliers alleged to have been involved in the fraud.

HMRC v SED Essex Limited

In HMRC v SED Essex Limited [2013] EWHC 1583(Ch) the High Court has confirmed that the Court will, in appropriate cases, uphold the appointment of provisional liquidators where the petition debt is based on allegations of fraud. The case sets out the court’s approach to disputed debts, VAT assessments, and provisional liquidation in order to preserve evidence as well as assets and the application of the guidance from the Court of Appeal in Rochdale Drinks.

What the case decided and why it matters

Freezing Injunctions

Key points

• To attribute a director’s fraud to a company, the company must be a one-man company

• A one-man company requires no innocent directors or shareholders

The Facts

Singularis Holdings Ltd (the “Company“) was set up to deal with the personal assets of Mr Al Sanea. Mr Sanea was at all the times the sole shareholder of the Company, though he was only one of a number of directors of the Company.

The recent case of Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch) (Singularis) is an important decision affecting any institution that handles client payments, including banks. It decided that a stock broker was liable in negligence for having breached its duty of care to its customer, Singularis Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (Singularis), by paying monies out of its client account on the instruction of one of Singularis' directors and its only shareholder, Mr Al Sanea.

Background