The English High Court in Bank and Clients Plc v King and Brown considered guarantor liability in circumstances where the guarantors, Messrs King and Brown, alleged representations had been made by the Bank that would relieve them of their liability.

(High Court Auckland, CIV 2010-404-6381, 8 April 2011, Associate Judge Matthews)

In ASB Bank Limited v Hall, the High Court confirmed that a bank does not owe a duty of care to a creditor, director or shareholder of a customer of the bank. 

Introduction

The recent case ofPlant & Plant (administrators of Relentless Software Ltd) v Vision Games 1 Ltd & Ors1 concerns the attempt of a funder of a video games developer to recover the proceeds of a tax credit payment made by HMRC to the developer, pursuant to the security that had been granted by the developer to the funder.

In assessing whether the funder could recover such sums, the High Court was asked to consider various issues, including:

Summary

The Court of Appeal1 has ruled that foreign judgments in insolvency proceedings may be enforced by the English courts at common law, and that the ordinary principles which may prevent the enforcement of foreign judgments do not apply to insolvency judgments where the action from which the foreign judgment arises is integral to the collective nature of the insolvency proceedings.

Facts

An adjudicator can only deal with one dispute under one contract. In Enterprise v McFadden the adjudicator could not therefore deal with a claim to a net balance arising out of mutual dealings on four separate subcontracts (one of which was not even a construction contract) under Rule 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. Tripartite adjudication is not possible so the adjudication could not cope with a cross claim which would have involved joining assignors.

Armed with an adjudicator’s decision and a TCC enforcement judgment, can a party issue a statutory demand for payment, even if the other party has a genuine and substantial cross claim against the sum awarded? No, said Judge Stephen Davies in Shaw v MFP. Neither the Construction Act nor the Scheme was intended to displace the position under the Insolvency Rules, which give the court discretion to set aside a statutory demand if the debtor appears to have a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which equals or exceeds the debt in the statutory demand.

In a decision which has not yet been confirmed by the German Federal Court, the Higher Regional Court of Celle (an appellate court) has decided that a German policyholder of UK life insurer Equitable Life is not protected by a scheme of arrangement which had been approved by the London High Court in February 2002 (OLG Celle 8 U 46/09 from 8 September 2009). The claimant had challenged that, following the scheme of arrangement, he would have had received lesser profit payments. A final decision of the German Federal Court is expected at the end of 2010.

Summary

The joint administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) have released their second statutory six month progress report for the period 15 March 2008 to 14 September 2009 (the “Report”).

A full copy of the Report is attached, which includes detail about the positions realised and expenses to date. Key points of interest are as follows:

Introduction – why does this matter?