header-logo header-logo

The case for set-off (Pt I)

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll