The UK Supreme Court, which is the UK's highest court, has handed down its long-awaited decision in Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38, in which the Court considered the validity and enforceability of so-called "flip" clauses under English bankruptcy law.

A CVA was introduced as one of the rescue arrangements under the Insolvency Act 1986. It allows a company to settle unsecured debts by paying only a proportion of the amount owed, or to vary the terms on which it pays its unsecured creditors. Whilst a CVA only requires approval of a 75% majority of the creditors by value, it binds every unsecured creditor of the company, including any that voted against it or did not vote at all.

The liquidator of Onslow Ditching Ltd (ODL), sought a declaration against two directors (on three grounds), seeking damages/fines or a contribution of assets from each director for:

Following the Court of Appeal decision in their application to the Court for directions to enable them to identify client money and its traceable proceeds (as previously reported here), the administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) sought further directions regarding the further work to be carried out, the evidence to be prepared and the identification of appropriate respondents and sought a protective costs order.

Isher Fashions UK ("Isher") supplied Jet Star Retail Limited ("Jet Star") with goods. The contract for the supply of the goods contained retention of title provisions, but it was agreed between the parties that the contract implicitly gave Jet Star the right to deal with the goods despite Isher's claim to retention of title. The contract also gave Isher a right, by notice, to prevent Jet Star from selling or parting with possession of any goods supplied if Jet Star became the subject of formal insolvency proceedings.

The Sinclair v Versailles1 decision has extinguished any prospect that a victim of a fraud has a proprietary claim to a fraudster’s secret profits. It also offers significant comfort to banks, insolvency practitioners and other potential recipients of trust funds by setting a high bar for whether a recipient person is “on notice” of a proprietary claim to those funds.

Nicola Jane Haworth (Bankrupt) v (1) Donna Cartmel (Trustee in Bankruptcy of Nicola Jane Haworth) (2) The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs

Case No. 3496 of 2009 in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Manchester District Registry

Summary

A recent High Court case involving unlawful loans to directors illustrates the potential pitfalls involved in calculating limitation periods, and the circumstances in which the usual six year statutory limitation period will not apply to a recovery claim against a fiduciary.

Facts

Broadside Colours and Chemicals Ltd was a family firm supplying dyes to the textile trade. The directors were Geoffrey Button, his wife Catherine Button, and their son James Button. Only the father and son were shareholders.

In the recent English Court of Appeal case of Rubin v Coote, the court allowed a liquidator to settle litigation without having obtained the agreement of all creditors to the compromise.

The Facts

The story of the Silentnight restructuring has featured in the press today. There have been calls for the Pensions Regulator to use its anti-avoidance powers under the Pensions Act 2004 to compel HIG Europe to pay more towards the considerable deficit of the Silentnight Pension Scheme, following the purchase of Silentnight out of administration by the private equity firm last Saturday. Earlier this year, Silentnight had failed to obtain the PPF's approval to a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement aimed at addressing its historic debt, including a pensions deficit of around £100m.