Following the Court of Appeal decision in their application to the Court for directions to enable them to identify client money and its traceable proceeds (as previously reported here), the administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) sought further directions regarding the further work to be carried out, the evidence to be prepared and the identification of appropriate respondents and sought a protective costs order.
FSA has published guidance on cooperation between recognised bodies and insolvency practitioners. The guidance looks at how the exchanges and clearing houses can work with insolvency practitioners to manage member defaults. (Source: Cooperation Guidance on Member Defaults)
Isher Fashions UK ("Isher") supplied Jet Star Retail Limited ("Jet Star") with goods. The contract for the supply of the goods contained retention of title provisions, but it was agreed between the parties that the contract implicitly gave Jet Star the right to deal with the goods despite Isher's claim to retention of title. The contract also gave Isher a right, by notice, to prevent Jet Star from selling or parting with possession of any goods supplied if Jet Star became the subject of formal insolvency proceedings.
In a judgment issued in test cases, OTG Ltd v Barke and others, the EAT held that administration proceedings are not capable of coming within the insolvency exception to the normal business transfers rule.
There has been a considerable amount of discussion and work undertaken in relation to the modernisation of the Insolvency Rules. Towards the end of last year, the Insolvency Service invited views and comments on whether to work on a complete re-write of the Insolvency Rules or to just make necessary amendments to the existing rules.
In this client briefing we explain the law and process of appointment of Law of Property Act receivers. (June 2011)
This briefing looks at the options available to directors in the winding up of a solvent company.
- Introduction
Most reading this will know that freezing orders are granted to prohibit defendants from disposing of or dissipating their assets in a way that will prevent the claimant from enforcing any judgment he obtains. If the defendant disobeys, he is at risk of contempt. But the primary purpose of contempt is to punish the defendant. Many claimants will simply be concerned to ensure that the defendant’s money is frozen.
The Sinclair v Versailles1 decision has extinguished any prospect that a victim of a fraud has a proprietary claim to a fraudster’s secret profits. It also offers significant comfort to banks, insolvency practitioners and other potential recipients of trust funds by setting a high bar for whether a recipient person is “on notice” of a proprietary claim to those funds.
Nicola Jane Haworth (Bankrupt) v (1) Donna Cartmel (Trustee in Bankruptcy of Nicola Jane Haworth) (2) The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs
Case No. 3496 of 2009 in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Manchester District Registry
Summary