39:
139:
section 238. Brewin
Dolphin contended that part of the agreement was that its parent company, Private Capital Group Ltd, would pay AJ Bekhor four yearly instalments of £312,000 for renting computer equipment. The covenant for the rental had been sublet to BD by AJB despite an absolute bar in the head
163:
held that the transaction was effected at an undervalue, was voidable under section 238. The computer rental agreement was taken as consideration for the deal, but when assessing its value, reality and not speculative values should not be taken into account. The collateral agreement was precarious,
115:. Ultimately, the court found that, for the purposes of insolvency law, it may be appropriate to consider details of a complex series of linked transactions to assess whether the transaction was undertaken at an ‘undervalue’.
123:
Mr
Phillips, the liquidator of AJ Bekhor & Co, sought to recover the £725,000 and interest for a business and asset that had been transferred to a subsidiary, which in turn was bought by
217:
193:
164:
and worthless because the headlessors had immediately declared the transaction to be a repudiatory breach, and it therefore had no value to Brewin
Dolphin.
462:
344:
303:
472:
322:
160:
49:
38:
144:
255:
358:
107:
In this case, the court examined whether a series of arrangements could be understood as one "transaction" for the purposes of being an
279:
231:
186:
332:
148:
135:) through a share purchase for £1. The question was whether this constituted a transaction at an undervalue contrary to the
467:
398:
101:
179:
382:
267:
243:
108:
17:
128:
318:
209:
136:
112:
409:
394:
291:
419:
370:
213:
221:
124:
456:
415:
97:
309:
59:
171:
147:
refused to take the computer rental agreement into account, as part of
132:
75:
Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton, Lord
Hobhouse, Lord Millett and Lord Scott
175:
79:
71:
66:
55:
45:
31:
187:
8:
85:Voidable preference, undervalue transaction
346:Re Produce Marketing Consortium Ltd (No 2)
194:
180:
172:
37:
28:
305:Phillips v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie Ltd
18:Phillips v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie Ltd
104:case, concerning voidable transactions.
431:
93:Phillips v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie
32:Phillips v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie
7:
359:Re Oasis Merchandising Services Ltd
463:United Kingdom insolvency case law
280:Arbuthnot Ltd v Havelet Ltd (No 2)
232:Re Parkes Garage (Swadlincote) Ltd
25:
256:Re Gray's Inn Construction Co Ltd
333:Re Anglo-Austrian Printing Union
473:2001 in United Kingdom case law
1:
102:United Kingdom insolvency law
151:for the share transaction.
489:
391:
379:
367:
355:
341:
329:
316:
300:
288:
276:
264:
252:
240:
228:
207:
202:Cases on recouping assets
84:
36:
143:The trial judge and the
383:Morphites v Bernasconi
268:Re MC Bacon Ltd (No 1)
244:Re Yeovil Glove Co Ltd
109:undervalue transaction
129:asset management firm
98:[2001] UKHL 2
468:House of Lords cases
319:Insolvency Act 1986
210:Insolvency Act 1986
137:Insolvency Act 1986
113:Insolvency Act 1986
410:UK insolvency law
405:
404:
399:UK insolvency law
89:
88:
16:(Redirected from
480:
439:
436:
395:Unlawful trading
347:
306:
292:Re Shoe Lace Ltd
196:
189:
182:
173:
67:Court membership
41:
29:
21:
488:
487:
483:
482:
481:
479:
478:
477:
453:
452:
447:
442:
437:
433:
429:
406:
401:
387:
375:
371:Re Purpoint Ltd
363:
351:
345:
337:
325:
312:
304:
296:
284:
272:
260:
248:
236:
224:
203:
200:
170:
157:
145:Court of Appeal
121:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
486:
484:
476:
475:
470:
465:
455:
454:
451:
450:
446:
443:
441:
440:
430:
428:
425:
424:
423:
420:EWCA Crim 2155
412:
403:
402:
392:
389:
388:
380:
377:
376:
368:
365:
364:
356:
353:
352:
342:
339:
338:
330:
327:
326:
317:
314:
313:
301:
298:
297:
289:
286:
285:
277:
274:
273:
265:
262:
261:
253:
250:
249:
241:
238:
237:
229:
226:
225:
208:
205:
204:
201:
199:
198:
191:
184:
176:
169:
166:
161:House of Lords
156:
153:
125:Brewin Dolphin
120:
117:
87:
86:
82:
81:
77:
76:
73:
72:Judges sitting
69:
68:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:
50:House of Lords
47:
43:
42:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
485:
474:
471:
469:
466:
464:
461:
460:
458:
449:
448:
444:
435:
432:
426:
422:; 2 BCLC 438
421:
418:
417:
413:
411:
408:
407:
400:
396:
390:
385:
384:
378:
373:
372:
366:
361:
360:
354:
349:
348:
340:
335:
334:
328:
324:
320:
315:
311:
308:
307:
299:
294:
293:
287:
282:
281:
275:
270:
269:
263:
258:
257:
251:
246:
245:
239:
234:
233:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
206:
197:
192:
190:
185:
183:
178:
177:
174:
167:
165:
162:
154:
152:
150:
149:consideration
146:
141:
138:
134:
130:
126:
118:
116:
114:
110:
105:
103:
100:is a leading
99:
95:
94:
83:
78:
74:
70:
65:
62:, 1 BCLC 145
61:
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
434:
416:R v McCredie
414:
381:
369:
357:
343:
331:
302:
290:
278:
266:
254:
242:
230:
158:
142:
122:
106:
92:
91:
90:
26:
457:Categories
445:References
438:1 WLR 2052
386:2 WLR 1521
362:2 BCLC 493
295:1 BCLC 111
111:under the
259:1 WLR 711
56:Citations
350:BCLC 520
336:2 Ch 891
271:BCLC 324
235:1 Ch 139
168:See also
155:Judgment
80:Keywords
374:BCC 121
323:212-215
218:238-245
140:lease.
310:UKHL 2
283:BCC 36
247:Ch 148
133:London
60:UKHL 2
427:Notes
119:Facts
96:
46:Court
397:and
393:see
159:The
321:ss
222:423
214:127
212:ss
131:in
459::
220:,
216:,
195:e
188:t
181:v
127:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
