UK: Finance Litigation: The Latest Cases And Issues In April 2018

Gowling WLG's finance litigation experts consider consent orders in the context of a regulated activity, when a discharged bankrupt is still liable for bankruptcy debts and whether a deed of assignment pre or post-dated a winding up petition.

Some clarity on 'administering' a registered mortgage contract

The Court of Appeal has recently provided useful clarification that a lender entering into a consent order does not amount to the regulated activity of administering a regulated mortgage.

In Fortwell Finance Ltd v Halstead and Halstead, the claimant lender advance the sum of £2.36 million to the defendant borrowers for a fixed one year term. The loan was secured on a property owned by the defendants which was being converted from three flats to a single dwelling house. It was a special condition of the loan that the borrowers, nor their family, intended to occupy the property as a dwelling. The defendants completed the application form indicating that no one would be residing in the property. They gave their residential address as being in Rome, but told the claimant they intermittently stayed at flat 3 in the property when in London. Flat 3 accounted for less than 40% of the overall square footage of the property.

On the above basis, the claimant considered that the loan was not a regulated mortgage for the purposes of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the Act). The claimant was not an authorised person under the Act.

The defendants failed to repay the loan. The claimant appointed receivers and commenced possession proceedings. The borrowers argued that the loan was in fact a regulated mortgage as they resided in the whole of the property and, as the claimant was not an authorised person under the Act, the loan was unenforceable under s 26 of the Act.

Immediately before the possession hearing the parties compromised the action by entering into a consent order whereby possession was to be given in 28 days, rather than forthwith. The defendants had been confident they could refinance and repay the loan within that time but failed to do so.

The claimant applied for a warrant of possession and the defendants applied to set aside the possession order, warrant and consent order. They unsuccessfully argued that the mortgage was a regulated mortgage and that by entering into the consent order the lender was 'administering a regulated mortgage' under article 61(2) of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (RAO) and so the consent order itself was unenforceable.

Possession was obtained and the property was sold.

The defendants appeal before the Court of Appeal was dismissed. The court held:

  • The argument as to whether the mortgage was a regulated mortgage contract was compromised by the consent order which the defendants entered into willingly. It was wrong in principle to allow the defendants to seek to argue that had the regulated mortgage issue gone to trial, they would have succeeded on that point;
  • The specific wording in article 61(3)(b) RAO excluded the taking of legal proceedings to enforce a regulated mortgage contract from being 'administering' a regulated mortgage contract. If taking action to enforce the contract was not administering it, compromising such enforcement action could not be administering it;
  • Further, although taking any necessary steps for the purpose of collecting or recovering payments due under the contract from the borrower were included as 'administering' the contract under article 61(3)(b)(ii) RAO, compromising proceedings did not amount to a necessary step as litigants could always proceed to trial;
  • There was obvious public interest in enabling the compromise of legal proceedings. Parliament could not have intended such a compromise to breach s 19 of the Act and be a criminal offence under s23 of the Act.

The court refused to set aside the consent order.

Things to consider

The court was also aware of the 'unattractive feature' of this case that the defendants' argument depended upon their representations to the lender at the time of the transaction as to their intention not to reside in the property, having been knowingly untrue. There was no evidence the claimant knew of this and the claimant was entitled to rely on the positive representations made by the defendants in the documentation that they would not be occupying the property as a dwelling.

Discharged bankrupt still liable for debt incurred through dishonest actions

The High Court has recently considered the meaning of fraud in the exception under s 281(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA).

In JSC BM Bank v Kekhman and others, the claimant bank lent approximately US$150m to one of Kekhman's group of companies. That loan was guaranteed by other companies in the group. The loan defaulted and the guarantor companies went into administration or liquidation and so breached the guarantees. Kekhman was made bankrupt and was discharged from bankruptcy a year later.

The claimant successfully brought claims against Kekhman before the High Court under the Russian Civil Code for:

  • fraudulent misrepresentations made to the claimant by the borrower company's staff on the instruction of Kekhman as to the financial standing of the guarantor companies and as to the security offered (the deceit claims); and
  • unlawful means conspiracy in wrongfully dissipating assets and diverting business from the guarantor companies to other companies beneficially owned by him (the conspiracy claim) so as to reduce the recovery the claimant could make.

Kekhman defend the conspiracy claim (valued at in excess of US$18 million) on the basis that as a result of his bankruptcy he was released from all debts provable in the bankruptcy under s281 IA. Kekhman accepted that the word 'fraud' encompassed deceit and so there was no defence to the deceit claims. Kekhman argued that fraud meant only deceit and nothing else and that conspiracy and/or procuring breach of contract under the Russian Civil Code was not fraud or fraudulent breach of trust with the result he was discharged from liability in relation to the conspiracy claim.

The court disagreed. S281(3) IA provides an exception to the release under s 281 IA in that:

"Discharge does not release a bankrupt from any bankruptcy debt which he incurred in respect of, or forbearance in respect of which was secured by means of, any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which he was a party".

The court considered that the exception extended to any debts of the bankrupt resulting from his actual dishonesty, not just deceit in the strictest (unconscionable) sense. Kekhman had been a party to a conspiracy to defraud the claimant by the dissipation of assets. That conduct was dishonest so his liability to the claimant was tainted by actual dishonesty and fell within the rubric of fraud in s 281 (3) IA. His bankruptcy had not discharged him from his liability to the claimant.

Things to consider

As held in Templeton Insurance Ltd v Brunswick, the purpose of the qualification in s.281(3) IA is to prevent a person from using the process of bankruptcy or invoking his bankruptcy and discharge therefrom as a medium for becoming free from debts and liabilities resulting from his actual dishonesty. It is an anti-avoidance and preservative provision aimed at continuing the rights of a creditor who has been defrauded by the bankrupt.

Transaction post-dating presentation of winding up petition is invalid

In Barons Finance Ltd (in liquidation) v Barons Bridging Finance 1 Ltd and others, the court had to determine whether a deed of assignment (the Deed) assigning Barons Finance Ltd's (BFL's) book of loans to two other companies, Barons Bridging Finance 1 Ltd (BBF) and Reddy Corporation Ltd (Reddy), was valid. BFL, BBF and Reddy were all owned by Mr Gopee (G) who, along with his various companies, lent money to borrowers at high rates of interest. G and his companies were not properly licensed to lend money meaning most of the loans were invalid.

A winding-up petition was presented against BFL on 9 May 2012 and BFL was wound up on 19 September 2012. The Deed was dated 31 March 2012 i.e. before the petition was presented. However, the liquidator of BFL applied to set aside the Deed on the basis that:

  • The Deed was not entered into until on or around 17 September 2012;
  • As it post-dated the presentation of the winding-up petition it was void pursuant to s127 Insolvency Act 1986 (IA);
  • It was also void as a transaction at an undervalue pursuant to s238(4) IA. The consideration paid by BBF and Reddy was £76,500 whereas the book value was in excess of £612,000;
  • It was also void for being a transaction to defraud creditors pursuant to s423 IA.

The High Court held:

  • There was no contemporaneous documentation which established the existence of the Deed, or referred to it, before the presentation of the winding-up petition;
  • BFL had continued to try to enforce various loans subject to the Deed after 31 March 2012 which was inconsistent with the position that the loans had by then been assigned;
  • There had been no convincing explanation for the six month delay in registering the mortgage transfers between 31 March and 17 September 2012 or why it was registered only immediately before the winding-up order was made;
  • The Deed was referred to in two template letters dated 17 September 2012 giving notice of assignment to borrowers as having been entered into on that date. Again, no mention of 31 March 2012 date was made.

The court concluded that the Deed was made on or about 17 September 2012 as that was the only position consistent with the other documents created by BFL, BBF and Reddy who were all under G's control. It also concluded that the transaction was at an undervalue and was entered into for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors.

The Deed would be set aside and any transfers of any charges since 31 March 2012 at HMLR from BFL to BBF, Reddy or G were void and BFL should be reinstated as charge holder.

Things to consider

It was apparent in this case that G had attempted to remove the only significant asset from BFL, to his own benefit, before BFL was wound up. The lack of contemporaneous evidence indicating that the Deed existed prior to 17 September 2012 was very telling.

In case you missed them:

Insolvency Litigation: recent cases and issues in March 2018

In our update this month we take a look at a recent Supreme Court decision which has made it clear a director will not have a limitation defence to a claim for breach of fiduciary duty involving a disposition of company property.

Our insolvency litigation experts take a look at the decision and tell you what you need to know.

When will litigation privilege protect internal investigations?

Communications between lawyers and clients (or between either of them and a third party) which are created for the dominant purpose of litigation are normally privileged and therefore protected from disclosure to an opponent in that litigation. This principle can afford a degree of protection to internal investigations conducted by lawyers.

That general rule is however subject to the conditions set out in the decision in the case of Three Rivers (No 6).

Here we look at the similarities and differences between two recent cases which considered those conditions in the context of regulatory investigations by the Health & Safety Executive and HMRC.

The Basics: Negotiating a contract? Misrepresentation or just exaggeration?

Many things can be said when a contract is being negotiated. Some things become terms of the contract, others will be recognised as mere sales talk or harmless exaggeration. However, some statements may be representations, statements of opinion and other statements which, while not terms of the agreement, will induce a party to enter into a contract.

Here we look at the basics of misrepresentation, how you can avoid making or relying on a misrepresentation and what rights you may have if you do rely on a false statement when entering into a contract.

The Basics: What should a dispute resolution clause say?

Dispute resolution clauses govern how parties will seek to resolve any disputes which arise out of their contract. Disputes are often the last thing on the mind of commercial parties at the outset of a business venture, and so these clauses do not receive the consideration they deserve, with the risk that if and when a dispute does arise, the parties are left with a process which is inflexible and unsuitable.

Here we look at different methods of dispute resolution, and considerations in drafting an appropriate dispute resolution clause.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions