Nigel Barnett talks about bribes and other proprietary rights in insolvencies.

Introduction

For over 150 years, it has been a principle of English law that if an agent takes a bribe or a secret commission, he is liable to account to his principal for the amount received. However, there has been conflicting authority and academic debate as to whether the principal merely has a personal claim against the agent or whether he can assert a proprietary claim to the monies received and any profits made therefrom.

The Court of Appeal held that, while section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 did not apply to require the stay of a winding-up petition, it would be appropriate to dismiss or stay a petition pending resolution of a dispute over the petition debt where such dispute was within the scope of an arbitration agreement.

The news that USC has taken steps to commence an insolvency process is further proof (if proof were needed) that despite what TS Elliot may have claimed, January really is the cruellest month. 

In our recent article of 4 November 2014 we referred to a new case where the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson would be reconsidered. 

On 17 December 2014 the High Court handed down judgment in the case of Horton v Henry. The decision has been highly anticipated. 

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:

Is a pension pot beyond the reach of a trustee in bankruptcy? Conflicting High Court decisions reviewed below raise an interesting conflict between practical policy and strict technical interpretation

In both cases, the question was whether a trustee in bankruptcy can obtain an Income Payments Order (IPO) in respect of pension entitlements under a personal pension plan, where no election to draw the pension had been made prior to the Bankruptcy Order.

An investigation is to be carried out into the causes of the bankruptcy of OW Bunker (“OWB”), the largest ship fuel supplier in the world.  Investigators from two Danish law firms and Ernst & Young will try to establish the reasons for the failure of OWB less than a year after it was listed at a value of $1 billion. OWB has blamed its failure on hedging losses of $150 million, attributable to the falling price of oil and on a credit line estimated at between $120 and $130 million given by OWB’s subsidiary in Singapore, Dynamic Oil Trading (“DOT

In the Q3 2014 edition of Global Insight, we discussed the merits of bankruptcy sales for distressed hospitals in the United States. In many ways, the challenges facing healthcare companies in America have been mirrored in the UK care home sector in recent years. Unlike the US, the majority of health service provision in the UK is via the publicly funded National Health Service. An exception exists however in the provision of residential care to the elderly which has seen large scale private sector involvement.

CONSIDERABLE RISKS FOR PRIVATE INVESTORS

Mr Justice Hildyard has handed down his first instance decision on the second set of schemes of arrangement proposed by the Apcoa group.

Following on from our article on “Understanding and managing the risks of an insolvent acquisition” in the Q2 2014 edition of Global Insight, in this third article in our series of risks and opportunities in the fashion retail sector we assess one of the most prominent areas of risk for suppliers - the insolvency of a trade customer/retailer.