Financial guarantees often contain non-competition clauses. This is mainly to:  

• increase the financier’s recoveries from its principal debtor, by stopping the guarantor from draining money from the principal debtor; and  
• prevent the guarantor from obstructing a restructuring of the principal debtor’s liabilities.  

A recent case suggests these clauses should expressly exclude the “rule in Cherry v. Boultbee”. Zoë Thirlwell and Alexander Hewitt explain.

Counter-indemnity rights  

On 6 April 2010 a second wave of major changes to the UK Insolvency Rules 1986 (the Rules) came into force.

The recent English court decision in Goldacre (Offices) Limited v Nortel Networks UK Limited (in administration) [2009] EWCH 3389 (Ch) may be controversial and raises thorny practical issues, especially in relation to the restructurings of retail businesses.   

If an administration order is made and a pending winding-up petition is subsequently dismissed, the costs of that petition are payable as an expense of the administration.1

In Griffi n v UHY Hacker Young & Partners1 the court dismissed an application for summary judgment on the basis of the ex turpi causa (or illegality) defence, and made a number of observations as to uncertainties in the law as it stands.

When people are burdened with debt, they will sometimes resort to underhand tactics to relieve themselves of the consequences. One of the most common strategies is for the debtor to dispose of an asset, which would otherwise be used to pay his or her debts, for less than its market value. In consequence, there is legislation to protect the position of the creditors, who are, unusually, described as ‘victims’ in the legislation.

The above is a new Act to make provision about the rights of third parties against insurers of liabilities to third parties in the case where the insured is insolvent, and in certain other cases.

The case of Poulton v Ministry of Justice was decided by the Court of Appeal at the end of last month. The Court decided that a trustee in bankruptcy was left without a remedy against the Court Service when a bankrupt's estate suffered loss following an oversight by the Court Service to notify the Land Registry that a bankruptcy petition had been presented (as it is required to do by rule 6.13 of the Insolvency Rules 1986).

The background

His Honour Judge Purle QC in Re Cornercare Limited [2010] EWHC 393 (CH) has clarified English law on the filing of successive notices of intention to appoint administrators. He has held that there is nothing in the relevant provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") to prevent the filing of successive notices of intention to appoint administrators, where the original notice of intention to appoint an administrator had not been acted upon for good reason.

FSA has censured a firm in voluntary liquidation for failings in selling and promoting geared traded endowment policies. Integrity Financial Solutions provided and advised on the policies. FSA found the product information it produced was misleading, which may have led IFAs to advise customers to buy an unsuitable product. It also found the firm’s own sales arm did not record information on customers and could not evidence why the product was suitable. FSA would have recommended a £350,000 fine if the firm were not in liquidation.