Kookmin Bank v Rainy Sky
We have received a number of urgent enquiries about the outcome of the Kookmin Bank case, which was recently decided by the Court of Appeal, in London. The judgment was issued at the end of May 2010 and held, in effect, that refund guarantees -- relating to advance payments of about US$46 million -- were unenforceable by the Buyers to whom the guarantees had been issued. Given the importance of refund guarantees to our shipping and banking clients, we are issuing this summary of the judgment and its general significance.
Financial guarantees often contain non-competition clauses. This is mainly to:
- increase the financier’s recoveries from its principal debtor, by stopping the guarantor from draining money from the principal debtor; and
- prevent the guarantor from obstructing a restructuring of the principal debtor’s liabilities.
A recent case suggests these clauses should expressly exclude the “rule in Cherry v. Boultbee”. Zoë Thirlwell and Alexander Hewitt explain.
Counter-indemnity rights
There has been an upturn in the frequency of trade finance workouts, restructurings and formal insolvencies. Drew Sainsbury looks at some key issues that banks face when trade finance lending passes to “bad bank”.
The bank’s decisions at every stage of a trade finance transaction are critical: at origination; when following a workout/restructuring; and once a formal insolvency process becomes a reality.
Origination
In Harms Offshore AHT ‘Taurus’ GmbH & Co KG v Bloom [2009] EWCA Civ 632, the English Court of Appeal had to decide whether it would grant an order to vacate an attachment on the property of a company in administration, even though the attachment was obtained by a creditor in a foreign court.
In Pick v Sumpter and another, the first defendant's trustee in bankruptcy applied for an order for possession of the defendants' matrimonial home. At the hearing in May 2006, the evidence showed that the sum outstanding as at November 2005 was £25,571 but did not take into account legal costs. That sum was an estimate and did not take into account statutory interest on the bankrupt's debts beyond the date of the hearing, solicitor's costs of the possession hearing or any increase or decrease in the trustee's remuneration.
The court will not review a bankruptcy order where there has been no material change and evidence subsequently adduced could have been available at the original hearing.
Re Johnson Machine and Tool Co 6
The company was the subject of a “pre-pack” administration, whereby it was placed into administration and its assets immediately transferred to a new company controlled by the directors and owners of the existing company.
The above is a new Act to make provision about the rights of third parties against insurers of liabilities to third parties in the case where the insured is insolvent, and in certain other cases.
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
His Honour Judge Purle QC in Re Cornercare Limited [2010] EWHC 393 (CH) has clarified English law on the filing of successive notices of intention to appoint administrators. He has held that there is nothing in the relevant provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") to prevent the filing of successive notices of intention to appoint administrators, where the original notice of intention to appoint an administrator had not been acted upon for good reason.