Key points

Rights under s23, s24 and s31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (the “Act”) can only be pursued by the spouses themselves. Consequently, any ongoing action brought pursuant to those sections of the Act does not vest in the trustee in bankruptcy on appointment.

The facts

Key points

Challenging the transfer of assets through ancillary proceedings as transactions at an undervalue remains challenging.

The facts

This case centred around a property in Coventry originally owned and developed by a Mr Singh. After failing to pay his builders a substantial amount, on which he was subsequently bankrupted, Mr Singh charged the property to his father and then his sister-in-law.

Lease Assignment and Guarantees: Case Update and Recap

Summary

The 2010 Act has now been updated by regulations (the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2016) to reflect changes in insolvency law. Accordingly, the long-awaited 2010 Act will finally come into force on 1 August 2016.

It will be recalled that the 2010 Act is intended to make it easier for third party claimants to bring direct actions against (re)insurers where an insured has become insolvent. The key changes coming in are as follows:

Julian Kenny QC appeared for the Appellants in the Supreme Court who handed down judgment 11 May, a much anticipated ruling by shipowners and subsidiary companies affected by the OW Bunker collapse.

The judgment affirms the rulings of the Court of Appeal and of first instance Judge, Males J, that a contract for the supply of bunkers that a shipowner had entered into with a subsidiary of the now insolvent OW Bunker company was not one to which the Sale of Goods Act 1979 applies.

Padwick Properties Limited v Punj Lloyd Limited [2016] EWHC 502 (Ch)

FACTS

This case concerned a property in Stockport let at an annual rent of £784,268, where Padwick was landlord to a company named SCL. The defendant had guaranteed SCL's performance of its obligations.

The latest iteration of the Sun Capital litigation has confirmed once again what many restructuring professionals have known for a long time - that pension liabilities have a nasty habit of kicking investors where it hurts, often when least expected. Our recent blog explains the decision and provides some insights on the case.

The serious consequences of an adjudication of bankruptcy against an individual has long justified the strict requirement that bankruptcy petitions be personally served. Rule 6.14 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 requires as much, and says that ‘service shall be effected by delivering to [the debtor] a sealed copy of the petition’. But what constitutes delivery where the debtor declines to accept the petition from the process server?

The applicant applied to strike out a winding up petition that had been presented against it. The parties had entered into two construction contracts under which the applicant had subcontracted the fabrication and erection of steelworks to the respondent in relation to two separate sites. The contracts failed to provide an adequate mechanism for payment such that the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (HGCRA 1996) and the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (as amended) applied.

Picard, a trustee in bankruptcy, launched proceedings under the anti-avoidance provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code against Vizcaya, a BVI investment fund which had invested approximately $330m with Bernard Madoff via his New York firm. Prior to his fraud being discovered in late 2008, Vizcaya had been repaid $180m.Picard obtained a judgment against Vizcaya and its shareholders in the New York Bankruptcy Court. The judgment against Vizcaya was for $180m, $74m of which had been transferred to its Gibraltar holdings.