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.

In a case with truly global implications, the Supreme Court of England and Wales held earlier today that judgments of U.S. Bankruptcy Courts against foreign defendants who had not submitted to the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction were not enforceable in England and Wales in the case of Rubin v. Eurofinance SA.

Factual Background

Important clarification was provided today to the insolvency world as the UK Supreme Court in the conjoined appeals in Rubin and New Cap rejected the modified universalist doctrine that established common law rules as to the enforcement of foreign judgments do not (or should not) apply to insolvency orders.

The UK Supreme Court has handed down an important judgment in the conjoined cases of Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in Liquidation) and another v AE Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46, which provides vital clarification on the effect of foreign insolvency judgments on the UK courts. The judgment was handed down yesterday.

Background & Court of Appeal

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

The ongoing global financial crisis has resulted in a number of debt restructuring transactions as a result of companies being unable to meet with their debt obligations. In distressed situations, issuers typically seek investor consent to amend existing terms and conditions, often to relax covenants, reschedule payments, limit events of default and remove restrictions on raising further capital.

This update highlights developments in the administration of MF Global UK (“MFG”) since our last alert dated 15 June 2012.

Estimated outcomes

When a business is on the receiving end of a claim, it is faced with the prospect of having to incur significant costs to defend the action.

A defendant in that situation will usually be protected by the general rule that 'the loser pays the winner's costs'.

This means that if the defendant successfully defends the claim, the defendant can expect to recover a percentage of its costs from the claimant as ordered by the court if not agreed.

But what if happens if the claimant is unable to pay the defendant's costs?

What happens where a personal injury claimant is made bankrupt part way through the case, or where a bankrupt wishes to bring a claim for personal injury?

Outer House case considering a motion for recall of inhibitions served on Cordelt Limited and Mako Property Limited by Playfair Limited. Mako and Cordelt argued that the inhibitions prevented them showing clear searches to purchasers in implement of a contract to sell properties in Edinburgh.