Introduction

Nigel Barnett talks about bribes and other proprietary rights in insolvencies.

Introduction

For over 150 years, it has been a principle of English law that if an agent takes a bribe or a secret commission, he is liable to account to his principal for the amount received. However, there has been conflicting authority and academic debate as to whether the principal merely has a personal claim against the agent or whether he can assert a proprietary claim to the monies received and any profits made therefrom.

MiFID 2 package published in OJEU: The text of the recast Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID 2) and its related Regulation (MiFIR) were published in OJEU on 12 June and will come into force on the 20th day following that of their publication. Member States have to transpose MiFID 2 by 3 July 2016 and both it and MiFIR will apply from 3 January 2017.

The UK Treasury and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have been drip-feeding the industry rules and practical details of the transfer of consumer credit (CC) regulation to FCA. FCA has now published the final form of its detailed rules in its Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC), with feedback and practical advice. The rules apply from 1 April 2014 with limited grace periods only. It is critical that all firms carrying on credit-related regulated activities know what the changes mean for them.

In a thorough appellate decision, a United States District Court in Florida has reversed the portion of a Bankruptcy Court’s determination that the repayment of over $400 million in loans was a fraudulent transfer. As discussed in more detail below, the decision is significant in the context of complex, multiple entity structures in determining (i) which affiliated entity (or unpaid creditors of that entity) can recover a transfer and (ii) what constitutes reasonably equivalent value for the transfer.

Legal developments

The much anticipated Mainzeal judgment is released

High Court orders the liquidation of CBL Insurance

Arena Capital Limited (Arena) was a Ponzi scheme.  Arena's liquidators applied under s284(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1993 for directions regarding the distribution of assets under liquidation.

The Court held that dividing the assets into trust assets and general assets was inefficient in the circumstances and ordered a "common pool approach."  The Court ordered distribution on a pro rata, pari passu basis.  The investors had borne the same degree of risk and it was not cost-effective to trace the numerous small contributions.

Last month the Insolvency Working Group released its second and final report, dealing with voidable transactions and Ponzi schemes.  The Group's first report was released in July 2016 and dealt with regulation of insolvency practitioners and voluntary liquidations.  In the second report, the Working Group make a number of recommendations on the voidable transaction regime and regarding protection from Ponzi schemes.  In relation to voidable transactions, the primary recommendations were repealing the "gave value" part of the defence available to creditors with a view to incre