- 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
In a recent case in relation to the liquidation of Echelon Wealth Management Limited ("E"), Lord Glennie has decided that upon removal as liquidator, a former liquidator may not retain from the assets of the liquidated company any sum as security for costs.
The Facts
S&C were appointed joint liquidators of E at a creditors meeting on 16 December 2008. At a creditors meeting on 22 July 2009, they were then removed from office with new joint liquidators being appointed.
The UK Pensions Regulator (the Regulator) has just announced that it has reached a settlement with the intended target of its first Contribution Notice (CN), with the result that the CN has been issued, but for a far lower amount than the Regulator originally sought. This case gives important guidance on the situations in which the Regulator believes it will be justified in issuing a CN, and on the potential liabilities targets may face.
The Moral Hazard Powers
Important news for those buying a business out of “pre-pack” administration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Pressure Coolers v.
As reported in our recent e-update on the case of Echelon Wealth Management Limited (in liquidation), Lord Glennie has determined that liquidators who are removed from office have no right to retain assets as security for remuneration and costs. Lord Glennie then went on to consider how the court, in determining the level of a liquidator’s remuneration, should view the conduct of the liquidator.
Introduction
Introduction
A clause in a settlement agreement, which provided that an indemnity would cease on a company's insolvency, infringed the anti-deprivation principle as it deprived the insolvent company's administrators of an asset for distribution to creditors. A purported "contracting out" of the insolvency legislation was contrary to public policy and the clause was void (Folgate London Market Ltd v Chaucer Insurance Plc www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/328.html).