Kookmin Bank v Rainy Sky

We have received a number of urgent enquiries about the outcome of the Kookmin Bank case, which was recently decided by the Court of Appeal, in London. The judgment was issued at the end of May 2010 and held, in effect, that refund guarantees -- relating to advance payments of about US$46 million -- were unenforceable by the Buyers to whom the guarantees had been issued. Given the importance of refund guarantees to our shipping and banking clients, we are issuing this summary of the judgment and its general significance.

Financial guarantees often contain non-competition clauses. This is mainly to:  

• increase the financier’s recoveries from its principal debtor, by stopping the guarantor from draining money from the principal debtor; and  
• prevent the guarantor from obstructing a restructuring of the principal debtor’s liabilities.  

A recent case suggests these clauses should expressly exclude the “rule in Cherry v. Boultbee”. Zoë Thirlwell and Alexander Hewitt explain.

Counter-indemnity rights  

In Harms Offshore AHT ‘Taurus’ GmbH & Co KG v Bloom [2009] EWCA Civ 632, the English Court of Appeal had to decide whether it would grant an order to vacate an attachment on the property of a company in administration, even though the attachment was obtained by a creditor in a foreign court.

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.

The court will not review a bankruptcy order where there has been no material change and evidence subsequently adduced could have been available at the original hearing.

Re Johnson Machine and Tool Co 6

The company was the subject of a “pre-pack” administration, whereby it was placed into administration and its assets immediately transferred to a new company controlled by the directors and owners of the existing company.

We first reported on The Trustee in Bankruptcy of Louise St John Poulton v Ministry of Justice in the October 2009 banking update. In short, the Court Service had failed to give notice of a bankruptcy petition to the Chief Land Registrar. As a result, no pending action had been registered against the name of the debtor and no notice had been registered against the debtor's property.

Pre-packs continue to occupy centre stage, and administrators might be forgiven for feeling somewhat under the spotlight.

In the present fi nancial climate, customers are increasingly asking for business critical software or other assets to be transferred to the customer should the supplier become insolvent, for the legitimate reason that the customer needs security of supply. Two recent Court of Appeal cases remind us that customers who outsource to and contract with potentially vulnerable service providers need to take account of the “anti-deprivation principle” when doing this.

The recent English court decision in Goldacre (Offices) Limited v Nortel Networks UK Limited (in administration) [2009] EWCH 3389 (Ch) may be controversial and raises thorny practical issues, especially in relation to the restructurings of retail businesses.