[2008] EWHC 1099 (Ch)

The High Court has ruled that calculations of employer debt by scheme actuaries cannot be challenged by insolvency practitioners unless there is evidence of fraud or error.

Secured creditors with an unsecured shortfall cannot claim a share of the prescribed part of the floating charge realisations set aside for unsecured creditors under Section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986. This applies whether the secured creditor is the holder of a fixed or a floating charge (or both).

The retail sector and its suppliers operate at the sharp end of the economy and feel the impact of tighter consumer spending with more immediacy than most other sectors.

Summary

A recent court decision has finally clarified the law relating to bankruptcy after the conclusion of ancillary relief proceedings, after a significant period of uncertainty. The Court of Appeal in the case of Haines v Hill has decided that a property transferred to a wife in ancillary relief proceedings should, in the absence of fraud or collusion, remain safe even in the swift event of her former husband’s bankruptcy.

One pioneer in this area is Toby Duthie, the founder-director of Forensic Risk Alliance, a forensic accounting and investigations business. Duthie became familiar with the US litigation system while assisting European companies responding to US-based litigation. Duthie recognised that there were many differences between the US and the various EU legal systems. For example, unlike in the UK, the application of contingency fees to plaintiff actions is permissible in the US (see above).

Background to Re Permacell

The subject of gratuitous alienations is a problematic area for the property practitioner. Timing is all-important, and often it only becomes an issue for insolvency reasons retrospectively. Put simply of course, in lay terms a gratuitous alienation is no more than a gift, and there is nothing to prevent an owner of property gifting it to someone if he chooses.

The Case

This is the first time that the HGCRA has reached the House of Lords. The dispute here, which related to the payment part of that legislation, highlighted the tension between an employer’s payment obligations and the impact on those obligations of the contractor going into administration. Here, on 2 May 2003, Melville applied for an interim payment. No withholding notice was served. The final date for payment was 16 May 2003. Wimpey did not pay, but on 22 May 2003 administrative receivers were appointed.

In a judgment useful to insolvency practitioners, a court has recently confirmed that liquidators are not personally liable for payment of dividends. In Lomax Leisure v Miller and Bramston [2007] EWHC 2508 (Ch) Miller and Bramston faced personal claims on dividend cheques they had cancelled, after receiving a pending application from a creditor whose claim they had rejected. Miller and Bramstom were later replaced by a new liquidator who brought claims in the name of the company and various creditors.