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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll