M - Marshalling security
15/7/13
NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY v SZEPIETOWSKI [2013] UKSC 65
Where a bank with a first charge sold a property which the defendant had agreed to transfer to the agency in settlement of an asset recovery claim, the agency could not rely on the doctrine of marshalling to have the benefit of the bank’s charge on the defendant’s family home.
3/10/13
Having held that the claimant was entitled to a declaration of its entitlement under the doctrine of marshalling to the benefit of charges held by the bank on assets of associated companies which the bank had not enforced, the judge below had been wrong to hold that the claimants could not exercise those rights until the bank had been paid in full. There was no reason to deny the claimant the right to realise the securities immediately.
14/2/13
HIGHBURY PENSION FUND MANAGEMENT CO v ZIRFIN INVESTMENTS LTD [2013] EWHC 238 (Ch)
A bank enforced by sale a first charge on a company's property to satisfy the company's borrowing and its liabilities to the bank under guarantees of loans by the bank to associated companies. The claimant, a holder of second and third charges on the property, was entitled under the doctrine of marshalling to a declaration that when all sums due to the bank had been repaid, the claimant would be entitled to the benefit of charges held by the bank on assets of the associated companies which the bank had not enforced. Although those assets had become the subject of a restraint order in favour of the SFO, the claimant's rights were unaffected by the restraint order because they existed before the restraint order was made.
© Copyright 2013 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer