The claimant and defendant both lent money to a company (Y) under a credit facility. Y’s financial position deteriorated, the parties appointed investigating accountants and put Y into “workout”. Following an assignment of Y’s indebtedness to the claimant to the defendant’s subsidiary, the claimant brought proceedings against the defendant for breach of an anti-claim clause in the assignment.

At the end of 2006 a decision of the Court of Appeal in Churchill v First Independent Factors and Finance Limited (Churchill) caused consternation among those involved in the management of insolvent companies who are also involved in the management of the company that acquires the whole or a substantial part of the insolvent business.

A husband and wife jointly owned their property. In matrimonial proceedings, the husband was ordered to transfer his interest in the property to the wife. Following his bankruptcy, the husband’s trustee applied to set aside the property transfer on the basis that it had been made at an undervalue, and the wife had given no consideration in money or money’s worth within the meaning of s339 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The wife contended that the fact that she had foregone ancillary relief claims was capable of amounting to consideration.

The bank took a charge on the borrowers’ property. In January 1992, it demanded payment of the balance due under the secured facilities. In June 1992, it made a further formal demand specifically relying on the mortgage. One of the borrowers was subsequently made bankrupt. Periodically, the bank informed the borrowers that they continued to be liable and made demands for payment and referred to the mortgage.

The claimant obtained a judgment against the defendant for breach of a guarantee. The defendant entered into an IVA with his creditors, which included his liability to the claimant. The defendant paid the judgment sum to the claimant, but not the interest awarded on it. The claimant contended that the award of interest was a post-IVA claim, and threatened to bankrupt the defendant which would lead to a termination of the IVA. The defendant applied for a stay of execution of the interest part of the judgment, on the ground that it was within the IVA.

Although this case is about a trustee in bankruptcy’s fight to realise his interest in a property by virtue of a debtor’s bankruptcy, the facts (though extreme) are not untypical of a finance company’s position when a hirer refuses to return goods to it despite the fact the court has ordered the hirer to do so.

In this case Mr Canty was made bankrupt in relation to a relatively small debt and he never accepted the position. There followed a number of appeals and challenges over the following years in which he attempted to reopen and relitigate earlier proceedings.

In an important decision for commercial property landlords, the High Court in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd and Others v PRG Powerhouse Limited and Others has ruled that a CVA (defined below) cannot operate so as to prevent landlords from enforcing a parent company guarantee. The Court's decision however was reached on the basis that to determine otherwise would have been "unfairly prejudicial" to the landlords.

How to get out of a guarantee

There are not many legal cases which are claimed to have a potential financial impact of £38bn across the property industry, or to represent ‘Armageddon’, but both these claims were made in relation to Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v PRG Powerhouse Limited [2007]. While that may have been a little over the top, it is not hard to see the reasons for alarm.

ARMAGEDDON?

Termination, rights to withhold payment and withholding notices under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Under the JCT suite of contracts, an employer is entitled to terminate the contractor’s employment where the contractor has become insolvent (including the appointment of administrative receivers in relation to the contractor). If an employer exercises this right of termination, the JCT provisions set out the resulting financial consequences.

In proceedings commenced by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the UK High Court ruled in December 2004 that Adrian Sam & Co (ASC) and John Martin, one of ASC’s two partners, were knowingly involved in the UK activities of an illegal overseas investment firm (a boiler room) and they were ordered to pay £360,000 (approximately $700,000) to 63 investors involved in the boiler room scam. A bankruptcy order was granted against John Martin in August 2006.