On 1 November 2012, the High Court gave judgment in favour of the Special Administrators (“SAs”) of MF Global UK Ltd (“MFGUK”), in relation to a claim by MF Global Inc (“MFGI”) arising from certain repo-to-maturity transactions (the “RTM Application”). These transactions concerned the repo of European debt securities by MFGI to MFGUK, which were governed by a Global Master Repurchase Agreement (“GMRA”).
We all know how busy insolvency practitioners (IPs) were during the recession dealing with the huge rise in corporate and personal insolvencies. That is now feeding into a real spike in professional negligence claims. We briefly summarise some typical claims we are seeing and how best to handle them.
What types of claims are we seeing?
Philip Jones explains that recent cases have confirmed the need for insolvency office holders, and those appointing them, to take great care to ensure that the appointments are valid.
As was described in our article Invalid Liquidation Appointments the appointment of an insolvency office holder can be fraught with difficulties.
Bilta (UK) Ltd in liquidation) & others v Muhammad Nazir & others [30.07.12]
High Court refuses to accept that a claim by an insolvent one-man company against its director for breach of his duties would be barred by ex turpi causa.
Bilta had two directors, one of whom owned all the company’s issued shares, effectively making it a "one-man company". The directors used Bilta to perpetrate a huge VAT fraud which left the company owing £38 million to HMRC. As a result, it was placed into insolvent liquidation.
When a tenant goes into liquidation and its liquidator surrenders the lease what effect does this have on any obligations to remove any alterations that the tenant has made during the term and generally reinstate? The high court has recently decided that the terms of a surrender that released both parties from rights arising “on or after, but not before, the date of this surrender” were sufficient to release the tenant from its obligations to reinstate the premises because these obligations were future obligations.
The High Court considers the status of claims for rent in an administration in Leisure (Norwich) II Ltd v Luminar Lava Ignite Ltd (in Admin) [2012] EWHC 951 (Ch) [2012] B.C.C. 497
The problem
Introduction
In the recent High Court decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In liquidation) and others v Nazir and others [2012] EWHC (Ch), the court considered the application of the legal doctrine of ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio’ in the context of fraud.
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.
In October 2009 the Greek airline, Olympic Airlines SA ("OA"), entered "special liquidation" in Greece after the European Commission ordered it to repay illegal state aid from the Greek Government. OA employed about 27 employees in the UK, who participated in an occupational pension scheme. In June 2010 OA's liquidator informed the scheme's trustees that the UK employees' employment would be terminated and that pension contributions would cease from July 2010.
As the prospects for business survival become ever tougher due to challenging economic conditions, administrators and liquidators are increasingly finding themselves having to justify to the courts whether or not costs should be treated as an expense of the administration or liquidation.
Sums incurred or paid as an expense of an administration or liquidation are, unlike debts incurred before the appointment of the administrator or liquidator, paid in preference to unsecured debts and also before the administrator or liquidator's fees and expenses.