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.
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.
- The 1992 ISDA Master Agreement: Court of Appeal provides clarity on payment obligations owed to insolvent counterparties
Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 419
Whether rent due should be treated as an insolvency expense (paid in preference to unsecured creditors and the insolvency practitioner's fees/expenses) remains controversially topical. With the economic recovery being more of a marathon than a sprint, and more insolvencies anticipated, both landlords and insolvency practitioners (IP) are calling for greater clarity over when rent is an insolvency expense and over what period.
Financial support directions and insolvency: the Regulator's statement
The Pensions Regulator (the “Regulator”) has published a statement setting out its approach to the issuing of financial support directions (“FSDs”) in insolvency situations. The statement is designed to calm fears following the decision in the joined Nortel and Lehman cases that the “super priority” of FSDs could have a negative impact on the corporate rescue and lending industries.
Background
Over the last few years, the courts have shown themselves to be increasingly unwilling to interfere in the level of liquidated damages set in building contracts. The courts have taken this position predominantly because the agreed level of liquidated damages forms part of the commercial bargain reached between the parties at the outset of the contract. However, employers should still carefully calculate the level of liquidated damages inserted into the contract for the following reasons: