On the 1 October 2007 new Practice Directions to the Civil Procedure came into force which will affect applications to court under the Companies Acts 1985 and 2006. In particular the rules in relation to schemes of arrangement under section 425 Companies Act 1985 are being amended to incorporate provisions in the Companies Act 2006 coming into force on 1 October 2007.

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.

Following the House of Lords' decision in Melville Dundas in April, the TCC has now decided in the case of Pierce Design v Johnston on 17 July that the case has a wide application - but unreasonable failure to pay may still be penalised.

The decision of the House of Lords in Melville Dundas in April resolved a tension between the payment provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 ("the Act") and contractual clauses applying to payments after termination of building contracts.

The House of Lords has had some important things to say about receivers’ liability in tort, and the law of conversion.

In the recent case of OBG Ltd v Allan, the House of Lords has ruled on key aspects of economic torts and the law of conversion (that is to say, the wrongful dealing with property in a way that is inconsistent with the owner’s rights). The law lords decided that the receivers should not be held liable for the damage which a company may have suffered as a result of the loss or underrealisation of business contracts.

In September 2003, PRG Powerhouse Limited bought the Powerhouse business and its leases. As a condition of the sale, the landlords of various stores accepted a guarantee from Powerhouse’s parent company in respect of Powerhouse’s obligations under the leases.