A party cannot appeal a decision made in bankruptcy proceedings by reason only of a personal interest in the outcome. An economic interest is a pre-requisite.

This was confirmed by the court in Sands and another v Monem and another, in which the bankrupt had transferred the interest in his home to his wife before being made bankrupt. The transfer was made allegedly in order to settle a debt, although this was not reflected in the documentation. That transfer was successfully set aside as a preference by the bankrupt's trustee.

Guidance published by HMRC in its Corporate Finance Manual has recently been updated to reflect a change in practice regarding the corporation tax treatment of debt for equity swaps.

Debt for equity swaps are commonly used in corporate restructuring, particularly when a company is in financial difficulty. They may also be encountered in the termination of joint venture arrangements where, prior to the sale of shares in the joint venture company by one co-venturer to the other, the parties wish to convert any loans made to the company into shares.

Insolvency procedures involving companies are complex and generally take a long time to complete. There is plenty of jargon which adds to the confusion, whereas all that an unsecured creditor usually wants to know is how to make a claim for the monies owed to him by the company, to whom the claim should be made, how long it will take to decide the claim and whether there is a possibility of recovering any monies from a company which is obviously experiencing financial difficulties.

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.

Why has the Financial Support Direction (FSD) been issued?

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

A new wrinkle in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases emerged recently when a U.S. bankruptcy judge issued an opinion directly at odds with the decisions previously rendered by certain English courts regarding priority of payment provisions (the “Priority Provisions”) with respect to collateral under the “Dante Program.”

The Dante Program

The anti-deprivation principle provides that “there cannot be a valid contract that a man’s property shall remain his until his bankruptcy, and, on the happening of that event, go over to someone else, and be taken away from his creditors”.

On January 25, 2010, the U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peck struck down a provision that used the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“LBHI”) to trigger subordination of a Lehman subsidiary’s swap claim against a securitization vehicle in the United Kingdom.1

Summary and implications

The court has clarified that administrators must pay rent as an expense of the administration when they use property.

The High Court has recently held* that: