When Havelet fell into arrears, Arbuthnot obtained a judgment and appointed a receiver.
He said that although the motive was not necessarily dishonest (on the basis that Havelet's lawyers had advised Havelet that it was not), the purpose of the transfer was to put the assets out of Arbuthnot's reach, it was still done with the purpose of putting assets beyond creditors' reach and thus was a fraudulent transaction and void.
Over the many weeks since the action was commenced and for the purposes of the numerous interlocutory applications made therein, a very large number of affidavits have been sworn.
That is not intended to be any sort of criticism of the administrators; it is one of the facts of life that professionals, whether they are solicitors, barristers or accountants, charge high fees.
There may be misfeasance claims against Mr Maughan himself: I have not referred to evidence about various bonus payments that he received from Leasing.
423 so as to reverse the improper transfers of assets from Leasing to Finance... Mr Maughan stressed in his submissions to me and in the affidavit to which I have just referred that what he did he did on legal advice from solicitors and counsel and without any dishonest intent.
Subsection (3) refers to the requirement, if relief under the section is to be granted, that the court must be satisfied that the transaction was entered into for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of a person who is making, or may at some time make, a claim against the company.
Leasing would have had a business and assets to which recourse could have been had in satisfaction or part-satisfaction of the judgment debt that, at the time of the transfers, Arbuthnot was seeking and that shortly thereafter it succeeded in obtaining.
The only asset left against which execution could be levied was Leasing's right to receive quarterly-in-arrears payments from Finance.
The consideration provided by the transferor in respect of the transfers of the LPs was the benefit of the income stream.