Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Is there any way for trustees in bankruptcy (trustees) to circumvent the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hill v Haines? John de Waal QC, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers, and Mark Sands, partner at RSM, review the judgment in Sands v Singh, in which the High Court was asked, among other things, to set aside an ancillary relief (AR) settlement entered into prior to bankruptcy as a transaction at an undervalue (TAU).
Sands (as trustee in bankruptcy of Mr Tarlochan Singh) v Singh and others  EWHC 636 (Ch),  All ER (D) 209 (Mar)
The Chancery Division ruled on an application by the first respondent’s trustee in bankruptcy, challenging transactions that the first respondent had entered into in 2010/11 in relation to a property he owned, the first respondent having subsequently been adjudged bankrupt, including a trust deed and consent order disposing of AR proceedings brought by the first respondent’s wife. It held that one of the charges was a sham and so a nullity, but that a second charge had not been proved to be either a sham or a preference within the meaning of section 340 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), and the challenge to the trust deed and consent order also failed.
Some nine months before Tarlochan Singh was made bankrupt owing his creditors £1m, and as part of a settlement reached in AR proceedings, he put the valuable matrimonial home—which was registered in his sole name—in trust for his two young children. Mr Singh had earlier also granted charges to his father and sister. Mr Singh’s trustee, Mark Sands, applied to set aside the charges as shams or alternatively preferences and the AR settlement as a TAU pursuant to IA 1986, s 339.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Stephen qualified as a solicitor in 2005 and joined the Restructuring and Insolvency team at Lexis®PSL in September 2014 from Shoosmiths LLP, where he was a senior associate in the restructuring and insolvency team.
Primarily focused on contentious and advisory corporate and personal insolvency work, Stephen’s experience includes acting for office-holders on a wide range of issues, including appointments, investigations and the recovery and realisation of assets (including antecedent transaction claims), and for creditors in respect of the impact on them of the insolvency of debtors and counterparties.
0330 161 1234