Gendrot v Chadwick and another (joint trustees in bankruptcy of Edward Hagan)

Bankruptcy Transaction at undervalue. A district judge had correctly held, in favour of the trustees in bankruptcy of the husband, that a transfer of his beneficial ownership or interest in two residential properties to his wife amounted to a transaction at an undervalue, within the meaning of s339 of the . The Chancery Division, in dismissing the wife's appeal against the district judge's order, held, among other things, that the reassurance she had given to the husband that he could continue to see her and his son on regular occasions had not amounted to valuable consideration, because no right to it had been conferred. Further, there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the sale of the properties being postponed or stayed.

Re Nortel Networks UK Ltd and others

Administration Administrators. The Companies Court allowed an application by the joint administrators of Nortel Networks UK Ltd and other companies in the Nortel group of companies for an order extending their terms of office by a period of 12 months, to 13 January 2019.

Re Dalnyaya Step LLC (in liquidation); Cherkasov and others v Nogotkov (Official Receiver of Dalnyaya Step LLC (in liquidation))

Insolvency Cross-border insolvency. The proceedings concerned a high-profile cross-border insolvency of a Russian company. The Chancery Division set aside a recognition order that had been granted to the respondent, who had been appointed by a Russian court as the official receiver of the company, where he had breached his duty of full and frank disclosure when applying for the order. The court so ruled further to its finding that there was a public interest in determining the disclosure issue, notwithstanding that the parties had agreed on most of the issues concerning the outcome of the litigation.

Simmonds (as trustee in bankruptcy of Mr Albert James Pearce) v Pearce (a bankrupt)

Contempt of court Criminal contempt. As it was the first time that an application for committal had been lodged with the Administrative Court in respect of breaches of the , and using the procedure set out in CPR 81.15, the Divisional Court gave guidance on the correct procedure. It then endorsed the claimant trustee in bankruptcy's certification that the respondent bankrupt, without reasonable excuse, had failed to comply with his obligation under ss 333(1)(a) and (c), and 363(2).

Mulalley and Company Ltd v Regent Building Services Ltd and another

Practice Pre-trial or post judgment relief. The claimant company was granted injunctions to restrain the respondents from presenting a winding up petition where the claimant's dispute concerning debts alleged in a statutory demand had been substantial and had been put forward in good faith. So held the Companies Court in allowing the claimant's application in proceedings which arose out of a construction dispute.

R (on the application of Monarch Airlines Ltd (in administration)) v Airport Coordination Ltd

Air traffic Airport. Monarch, an airline in administration, was still an 'air carrier' when slots fell to be allocated and remained an 'air carrier' under . The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that it would appropriate to grant Monarch a declaration that it was entitled to be allocated the relevant slots by the Airport Coordination Limited.

Wagner v White

Insolvency Statutory demand. Any fiduciary duty which the respondent de jure director (and creditor) of a company in administration had had to act in the interests of the company had been to look to the interests of its secured creditors, and not to the creditors as a whole. So held the Bankruptcy Court in dismissing an application to set aside a statutory demand, which had been based on a guarantee signed by the applicant in respect of the respondent's loan to the company. Among other things, the court dismissed the applicant's arguments that the statutory demand should be set aside on the grounds of misrepresentation, collateral contract or estoppel. Further, it held that it was fanciful to argue that the applicant might have a counterclaim, set off or cross-demand (equalling equalled or exceeding his liability under the guarantee) on the basis that the respondent had acted positively to persuade potential investors not to invest in the company and-or to seek to have his plan for a pre-pack administration concerning the company agreed.

Zavarco plc v Nasir; Nasir v Zavarco plc

Company Shares. An individual, N, had been obliged to pay in cash for shares in a company, Z. Further, the Chancery Division held that Z was entitled to forfeit N's shares. Z was not estopped from asserting that N's shares were unpaid, and Z was not under an obligation to make restitution to N.

Richardson-Ruhan v Ruhan

Family proceedings Financial remedies. In the wife's financial remedy proceedings against the husband, the Family Division rejected the husband's contention that he was insolvent as to 2m as a result of some 200m having been stolen from him. In particular, it found that the husband had had a nominee who had not had a valid claim against him.

Re Agrokor DD and in the matter of the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006

Insolvency Cross-border insolvency. The evidence adduced and submissions made established that the criteria for recognising the extraordinary administration proceedings in Croatia as a foreign main proceeding, within the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, , had been met. Therefore, the Companies Court granted the applicant company the recognition it sought, despite the respondent bank's objection.