The Facts
A former director of the Torex group of companies pursued proceedings against the group’s administrators, bankers and the purchaser claiming that the sale had been at an undervalue, that the bank and purchaser conspired by unlawful means in respect of the sale and that the administrators had been negligent in distributing the prescribed part. The administrators, bank and purchaser all applied to strike out the claims by way of summary judgment.
Claims Against Administrators
The Facts
RBK Engineering Ltd served a winding up petition on Breyer Group Plc, a construction company and contractual counterparty, alleging that it owed £258,729.16 and had admitted its insolvency. Breyer Group Plc applied to strike out the winding up petition on the basis that it was an abuse of process. It argued that it was solvent and had substantial counterclaims of its own.
The Decision
Key Points
- S 304 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is concerned with acts or omissions by a trustee in bankruptcy that have caused loss or damage to the estate
- However, the wording of that Section does not go so far as to state that in no circumstances can a trustee owe an enforceable duty in respect of loss or damage caused to the bankrupt personally.
The Facts
Key Points
- Directors cannot file a notice of intention to appoint (NoI) without a ‘settled intention’ to appoint an administrator
- NoIs cannot be used where there is no qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH)
- The judgment has implications for validity of appointments where requirements not met
The Facts
Background
The bankrupt and her husband, the appellant, were joint tenants of a business premises pursuant to an underlease. The trustee in bankruptcy disclaimed ‘all my/our interest in Leasehold property under the terms of the [underlease] in respect of [the property]’.
Appellant’s Case
The appellant contended that the disclaimer operated such as to prevent the landlords from claiming for rent in the bankruptcy estate post disclaimer.
Landlords’ Case
Key Point
In certain circumstances, a purchaser’s deposit may constitute an equitable lien upon the liquidation of the seller.
The Facts
An application under s112 IA 1986 was made by the joint liquidators of Alpha (Student) Nottingham Ltd to determine whether the purchasers of unbuilt flats had the benefit of equitable liens, and therefore ranked as secured creditors in the liquidation.
The Facts
Three former managers of a Russian company sought security for costs from its liquidator in respect of hearings to set aside a recognition order obtained by the liquidator pursuant to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (the CBIR) and for documents pursuant to Section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
The Decision
Summary
A liquidator rejected creditors’ claims. The creditors successfully appealed that decision and sought the costs of that application from the liquidator personally under rule 4.83 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (as it then was) on the assertion that the reason the liquidator rejected the claims was that they exceeded the value of a potential misfeasance claim against the creditors and he did not want set off to defeat the misfeasance claim.
Creditors’ Case
Key Points
- Claims against Kaupthing could not be pursued in the English courts
- No implied restriction on jurisdictional effect under the Winding-up Directive
- Position analogous to Judgments Regulation and Insolvency Regulation
The Facts
The Facts
A debtor entered into an IVA with his creditors. He complied with the terms of the IVA and a certificate of compliance was issued by the IVA supervisor. Subsequently, the debtor received two PPI settlement payments from banks. The supervisor applied to court for directions as to whether the payments were caught by the trust created by the IVA. The Deputy District Judge held not and the High Court agreed on appeal. The supervisor was given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The Decision