Trustees in Bankruptcy - Glenister v Rowe

Description

This insightful Webinar took place on 3 December 2013 - you can register for £35 + VAT to view it here right away.

In recent times, trustees in bankruptcy have faced difficulty in challenging orders made in ancillary relief proceedings as either transactions at an undervalue or as preferences. The Court of Appeal in Hill and Bangham v Haines held that such orders would usually have been made for proper consideration and would only be set aside where the bankrupt and former spouse had colluded to prejudice the bankrupt's creditors or in the case of fraud or mistake. Nor could they be challenged as preferences following the decision in Ball v Jones that a spouse with a potential claim for ancillary relief did not qualify as a creditor of the bankrupt.

The Supreme Court's recent judgment in the Nortel pensions case, overruling Glenister v Rowe may have implications upon that position however, its wider interpretation of contingent liabilities may have opened the door to trustees wishing to attack orders as preferences.

Areas covered

• The implications of the Nortel decision upon preference claims generally

• The likely approach of the bankruptcy courts to challenges to ancillary relief orders

How to register:

Email courses@r3.org.uk  with your details or download the brochure and send it to R3. 

Webinar details:

Duration: 1 hour
Cost: £35 + VAT