In Nicholas Stewart Wood and David John Standish (as the joint trustees in bankruptcy of Karl Eric Watkin) v Kate Rebecca Watkin [2019] EWHC 1311 (Ch), trustees in bankruptcy sought to establish that a bankrupt (theBankrupt) was the sole beneficial owner of three properties (theProperties), ostensibly purchased by him for his adult daughter. The High Court refused the application and held that the Bankrupt was not the sole beneficial owner of the Properties.
This is often a question for faced by office-holders of insolvent companies when investigating a company’s affairs, and more of a concern for former directors and shareholders when potentially facing a claim for the return of unlawful dividends or misfeasance.
The recent case of Re J T Frith Ltd [2012] EWHC 196 (Ch) shows:
- how secured lenders may surrender their security in order to participate in the prescribed part available for unsecured creditors on insolvency; and
- how intercreditor deeds may be worded to allow senior secured creditors to participate in the prescribed part, despite retaining their security.
Background
If you’re pursuing assets in England relevant to a non-European bankruptcy or insolvency, you can’t rely on a (default) foreign judgment and must instead bring fresh proceedings in the English courts
Empty units, falling yields and the spectre of tenant defaults are increasingly common issues that landlords have had to face in the current recession. To add to this landlords have also had to confront a number of high profile CVAs including JJB Sports (twice), Blacks Leisure, Stylo Group, Focus DIY, Fitness First and Travelodge to name a few.
In our last issue, we looked at the implications for out-of-court administrations where the company or directors seek to appoint an administrator under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, but then discover that between filing their notice of intention to appoint and their notice of appointment, a winding-up petition has been presented, triggering paragraph 25 of the Schedule. Paragraph 25 prevents the appointment of an administrator under paragraph 22 where there is a pending winding-up petition.
You are about to enter a new dimension. A world not only of law and of the Insolvency Act 1986, but of equity. You are about to enter… The Twilight Trust Zone!
Cash-flow is the life blood of a company. As a company fails the flow of this vital sustenance grows weaker. The heart stutters and fails. The company is dying. Worse, it is unable to meet its liabilities as they fall due, and so fails one of the statutory tests of insolvency.
- In the current economic climate personal insolvency is common place. According to the official figures, the number of personal insolvencies has risen from about 8,000 per quarter in 2002, to a peak of about 35,000 per quarter at the beginning of 2010. The current trend is a gradual reduction, the second quarter of 2012 seeing 27,390 personal insolvencies. In the last 12 months there have been 115,407 personal insolvencies: 35,456 bankruptcy orders; 30,816 debt relief orders; and 49,135 individual voluntary arrangements.
As some may be aware, the Court of Session last year issued a Practice Note on the subject of making applications to extend the period of administration beyond the initial 12 month period.
The recent case of F Options Ltd v Prestwood Properties Ltd concerned the setting aside of a transaction as a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
A preference arises when a company's creditor is put in a better position than they would otherwise have been in the event of the company's insolvency. Transactions may be a preference whether or not the parties are connected, but where it can be shown that there is a connection within section 249 of the Insolvency Act 1986, two important advantages are gained: