header-logo header-logo

06 February 2015 / Simon Duncan
Issue: 7639 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

The case for set-off (Pt I)

duncan

In the first article of a two-part series Simon Duncan reviews the legal basis for a bank to apply insolvency set-off

Set-off is the right of a debtor, himself owed money by his creditor, to effectively secure payment of the debt to him by setting it off against his own liability. In swaps mis-selling claims against banks, banks frequently set-off the company’s debt to the bank against damages or redress payments that the bank owes to the company where the company has gone into liquidation.

In the first part of this two-part article I review the legal basis for a bank to apply insolvency set-off in the following scenario. A bank (“B”) is owed £500,000 on an overdraft advanced to company (“A”). A has since gone into insolvent liquidation.

A (acting by its liquidator) sues B for the mis-selling of an interest rate swap and is awarded £500,000 or is offered the same sum as redress out of court. B then applies statutory insolvency set off pursuant to Insolvency Rule 4.90.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll