Over recent years I have been astounded that certain professionals, including accountants, insolvency practitioners (IPs) and solicitors, appear unable to recognise a conflict of interest if it were to stand up and slap them in the face.
Cynically, one could suggest that the blinkers have been on because it serves the interests of the professional concerned. Ignoring a conflict of interest is a fundamental breach of professional ethics, not something that can be brushed under the table for pure personal financial gain.
The Court of Appeal has released an important decision for landlords and tenants concerning applications for consent to assign a lease, overturning the High Court's earlier decision in No.1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd.
The Court of Appeal decided that one bad reason for a landlord refusing its consent will not render the entire decision to withhold consent unreasonable, so long as there are other reasons for the refusal which are good and free-standing.
Key points
The High Court struck out a claim by a liquidator who had already brought a claim arising from the same facts against the same defendants.
The court relied on the fact that the economic benefit of pursuing the claim would accrue only to the liquidator.
The Facts
Key points
To attribute a director’s fraud to a company, the company must be a one-man company
A one-man company requires no innocent directors or shareholders
The Facts
Singularis Holdings Ltd (the “Company“) was set up to deal with the personal assets of Mr Al Sanea. Mr Sanea was at all the times the sole shareholder of the Company, though he was only one of a number of directors of the Company.
The facts
A liquidator pursued a claim against a former director of a company, that the transfer of the company’s trading inventory in satisfaction of money owed to the former director was a transaction at an undervalue and/or a preference.
An attempt was made to grant floating charge security over the inventory, which the court found was void as it was granted for existing liabilities, at a time when the company was insolvent, to a connected party.
Statutory demands are a key asset in a lender’s arsenal when seeking to enforce under a guarantee. The mere threat of bankruptcy is often a powerful method of brining a reticent debtor to the table. Above all else, they are quick, simply and relatively inexpensive to present, often avoiding the need to bring proceedings against the debtor in court.
On Monday 29th January 2018, following a private prosecution, Andrew John Camilleri was unanimously convicted by a jury at Manchester Crown Court of making false representations in an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (“IVA”)[1] proposal contrary to section 262A of the Insolvency Act 1986. The prosecution was brought by one of Camilleri’s many creditors.
While overall insolvencies fell in number in 2017 compared with 2016, the last quarter of 2017 showed an increase compared with the previous quarters which had been stable.
In those insolvencies, the vast majority are voluntary liquidations, but there is a trend of retail businesses which are struggling turning to the Company Voluntary Arrangement restructuring option, often accompanied by a managed reduction in operations.
What happens if a debtor is made bankrupt after a creditor has issued debt recovery proceedings?
A bankruptcy debt is any debt that the bankrupt owed to the relevant creditor at the date of the bankruptcy order, or a debt which arises under an obligation incurred by the debtor before the bankruptcy order, but one which falls due after the date of the bankruptcy order (known as contingent debts).
The recent judgment in Phones 4U Ltd (in administration) v EE Ltd [2018] EWHC 49 (Comm) has highlighted the need for care when communicating the reasons for terminating a contract. In this case EE, as a result of failing to identify a repudiatory breach as the grounds for terminating its trading agreement with Phone 4U, was precluded from later pursuing a common law claim for damages.
Background