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.

In Franses v Al Assad – Butterworths Law Direct 26.10.07 a freezing order was granted against the first respondent, principally in respect of £6.5m that formed part of the proceeds of sale of a property that had allegedly been owned by him. The first respondent applied to discharge the freezing order.

In Samsun Logix Corporation v Oceantrade Corporation; Deval Denizeilik VE Ticaret A.S. v Oceantrade Corporation and another – Butterworths Law Direct 18.10.07 the Defendant in both cases was subject to Chapter 11 proceedings in the US.

The judgment of the Commercial Court in WASA and AGF v Lexington shows that a “follow settlements” clause in a reinsurance contract will not obviate the need for the reinsured to demonstrate that an inwards settlement falls within the terms and conditions of its outwards reinsurance. Partner Michael Mendelowitz reviews the judgment.

There is a prevailing view that landlords have not fared well in recent developments in insolvency law aimed at furthering a culture of corporate rescue. However, landlords should give a broad welcome to a recent case which sought to deal with the complicated question of what expenses should be considered as “expenses of an administration”.

Administrators to the rescue

In Lexi Holdings plc v Luqman and others – Butterworths Law Direct 17.8.07 the claimant company (the company), by its joint administrators, commenced proceedings against the first Defendant and his family, including the fifth Defendant. The company successfully applied without notice for freezing orders against the fifth Defendant.

Having obtained a possession order against the claimant’s property, the bank then sold it. Issues arose as to whether certain fixtures, fittings and chattels in the property formed part of the sale of the property. The claimant brought claims, amongst others, to recover the fittings and other items, a claim for damages for conversion of those items, and a claim that the property had not been effectively transferred to the buyer as the bank had no title to transfer the chattels to the buyer.

The defendant guaranteed payment of the price of equipment sold by the claimant to the defendant’s subsidiary. The claimant then entered into agreements with the subsidiary and various finance companies under which title in certain of the goods passed to the finance companies in return for payment of part of the relevant purchase price. The subsidiary paid some of the purchase price of the goods, as did the finance companies but the balance remained unpaid when the subsidiary went into liquidation. The claimant claimed on the guarantee and issued proceedings.

The defendant supplied drink to the owner of a club, the cost of which was secured by a charge over the club premises. The owner wished to re-finance his debt to the defendant and took a remortgage with the claimant to be secured as a fist legal charge on both the club and the owner’s house. Part of the remortgage monies were paid to the defendant in partial satisfaction of the sums outstanding. Both the claimant and defendant were granted legal charges over the house.

The defendant was the sole director of a company which went into liquidation. Almost six years after his appointment as liquidator, the claimant commenced proceedings seeking an order pursuant to s 212 Insolvency Act 1986 that the defendant contribute to the company’s assets on the basis that he had acted in breach of duty of care and skill and in breach of fiduciary duty owed to the company, which had resulted in the company’s deficiencies.