Key Point

A distressed debt purchaser may be able to rely on misrepresentations made by the borrower to the original lender in published documents to recover loss.

The Facts

An Irish investment company ("Taberna") claimed damages for misrepresentations made by or on behalf of a large Danish bank ("Roskilde"), in investor presentation documents and annual results, which induced Taberna to enter into a secondary market purchase of subordinated notes originally issued by Roskilde.

The Decision

On 27 April 2015, the English High Court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement (the “Scheme”) for the US$200 million 9.5% senior notes due 2015 (the “2015 Notes”) issued by DTEK Finance B.V. (the “Issuer”), a Dutch finance subsidiary of the Ukraine’s largest privately owned energy group (“DTEK”). The Scheme was approved by 91.1% of noteholders.

Just before Christmas last year, the High Court handed down a judgment in a bankruptcy case which was contrary to a High Court decision in a previous pensions and bankruptcy case on essentially the same issues. It has left this area in some uncertainty for the time being and is the latest in a long history of developments in this area.

A little bit of history

Kandola v Mirza Solicitors LLP [2015] EWHC 460 (Ch)

A recent decision of HHJ Cooke in the Chancery Division of the High Court in Kandola v Mirza Solicitors LLP [2015] EWHC 460 (Ch) has provided some useful guidance on solicitors' duties to advise as to the risk of insolvency of the vendor when acting for purchasers in property transactions where deposits are held as agents for the vendor. It also provides guidance on solicitors' duties generally when advising on risks in transactions.

The Facts

Key Point

Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ("HMRC") were not immune from the requirement to give an undertaking for damages suffered where a provisional liquidator was appointed based on HMRC allegations of fraud and tax evasion.

The Facts

The High Court has held that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the bankrupt was entitled and so refused to make an income payments order, contradicting the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson which held that a bankrupt’s right to draw income from a personal pension may be subject to an income payments order even if the individual has yet to draw his pension.

Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch)

Re Christophorus 3 Limited [2014] EWHC 1162 (Ch)

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).

The recent English High Court decision in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch)has conflicted with the earlier decision in Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWCA Civ. 799 and leaves the law unclear as to whether a debtor’s pension forms part of their bankruptcy estate.

A trustee in bankruptcy’s entitlement to seek an income payments order (“IPO”) in respect of a bankrupt’s income is governed by section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”). Under section 310(7) of the IA the income of a bankrupt:

On 30 October 2014, the English High Court sanctioned the second scheme of arrangement for the APCOA group (the “Scheme”). APCOA has been one of the hottest names in the restructuring market in 2014. First, it broke new ground in relation to an “amend and extend” scheme in early 2014 when it established sufficient connection to England off the back of a change in governing law. Second, the Scheme was aggressively opposed and its sanction by the High Court was appealed to the Court of Appeal (although ultimately the appeal was withdrawn).