Siblings Pay High Price for Dishonest Assistance to Bankrupt Brother

4th July 2018 By Arman Khosravi

If family members or friends are facing bankruptcy, it may be tempting to assist them in keeping their assets away from the clutches of creditors. The folly of such conduct was, however, strikingly revealed by a Court of Appeal case concerning a family clothing business.

Shortly before he was declared bankrupt – and after a petition for his bankruptcy had been presented – a businessman transferred his minority shareholdings in three family companies to his brother. Some of the shares were later distributed to his three sisters. His trustees in bankruptcy, however, launched proceedings against the four siblings under Section 284 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in order to recover the value of the shares for the benefit of their brother’s creditors.

The siblings ultimately accepted that the transfers were void and delivered the shares up to the trustees shortly before the trial of the action. The judge, however, ordered them to pay to the trustees the difference between the fair value of the shares as at the date on which they received them – assessed at £2,216,000 – and their fair value as at the date when they were returned to the trustees.

In ruling on the siblings’ appeal, the Court noted that the case involved serious dishonesty, in which the businessman’s brother had played a central role. Once the trustees had been appointed, he came under an immediate obligation to notify them that he held the shares and to restore them to his brother’s bankrupt estate. His failure to do either of those things constituted a breach of trust.

In allowing the siblings’ appeal in part, however, the Court found that the sums payable to the trustees should be calculated on the basis of the fair value of the shares as at the date when the trustees would have sold them. Such a sale would not have occurred until three to six months after the transfers.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Relationship Status Put Under Spotlight in Divorce Case

26th February, 2024 By

Divorce proceedings are rarely cut and dry, especially where the passage of time adds complexity to matters. This was certainly so in a recent case that required a Family Court judge to rule on the validity of a decree nisi. The case centred on the divorce proceedings of a couple in their fifties and focused on a decree nisi that had been pronounced in 2012, following an application by the husband. Now seeking to finalise the divorce with a decree absolute, the husband asserted that the decree nisi had been properly...

Will Execution – Remote Witnessing Legislation Expires

22nd February, 2024 By

A legal amendment that was made during the COVID-19 pandemic allowing the witnessing of wills to take place via videoconferencing has officially expired. As of 31 January 2024, the Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Order 2020 is no longer active. It was introduced in response to the pandemic, as a means of facilitating the valid execution of wills via remote witnessing. The Order applied to wills made between 31 January 2020 and 31 January 2022, but was later extended to 31 January 2024. Section 9 of the Wills Act...

Psychotherapy Condition Leads to Contact Order Appeal

20th February, 2024 By

Wherever possible, the courts will do what they can to support contact between parents and children but, in some instances, that contact comes with conditions attached. The nature of such conditions was the cause of contention in recent appeal proceedings brought by the father of two young boys. The man appealed against a High Court order that allowed for contact periods with his children, which would progress from supervised to unsupervised and increase in length but were dependent upon him engaging in psychotherapy. This condition had been imposed following a...

Beware of Builders Offering Cut-Price Work – Court of Appeal Cautionary Tale

16th February, 2024 By

Every householder should understand the dire risks involved in opening their doors to those promising to carry out cut-price building work. A Court of Appeal decision provided distressing examples of almost the worst that can happen. A householder approaching retirement age was taken in by a workman who knocked on his door, offering to paint the front of his home for £1,000. He was introduced to another man – the offender – whom the workman described as his business partner. The pair proceeded, over a period of months, to carry...