The insolvency of the borrower is a standard event of default in facility agreements. As well as covering the borrower's cash flow insolvency, these clauses also often cover other, earlier signs of distress. Two recent cases have seen lenders try to exploit these outer reaches of their insolvency event of default clauses. Hayley Çapani and Adam Pierce explain why these cases are significant for parties negotiating new deals, and for lenders considering their enforcement options on existing deals.

Negotiations with creditors for rescheduling

 The Government has decided to create a Special Administration Regime (SAR) for systemically important payment and securities settlement systems. It is concerned that, were one of these market infrastructures to become insolvent, the administrator or liquidator would have to work towards maximising value for creditors, rather than keeping critical payment and settlement services running. The Bank of England would have the power to apply to court for an order declaring the start of SAR proceedings. Ensuring continuity of service would be among the special administrator’s objectives.

 BoE has published a paper on central counterparty (CCP) loss-allocation rules. To avoid a CCP’s insolvency, these rules allocate among the CCP’s participants any losses exceeding the CCP’s pre-funded default resources, such as the margin posted by clearing members (CMs), the mutualised default fund and the CCP’s own equity. The options the paper suggests include calling additional resources from CMs, applying haircuts to margin owed to any CM or terminating unmatched open contracts.

The Court of Appeal has given guidance on when the duty of directors to have regard to the interest of creditors arises. This is an important point, as the general statutory duty of a director to promote the success of the company for the benefit of the company's members is expressly subject to the rules on creditors' interests. The court's decision also considers whether a dividend payment can be challenged as a transaction at an undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Facts

The Government has fed back on the responses to DBIS’s consultation on the effect of bankruptcy on the ability to access a basic bank account. Responses to the consultation have shown that only 27% of people subject to a bankruptcy order are able to retain their bank account. A bank's decision not to offer a bank account to a bankrupt is mainly based on the bankrupt's credit record, rather than on the risk of the trustee making a claim against the bank, a risk that the consultation process has shown is more perceived than real.

The Court of Appeal has considered whether interim dividends paid to a shareholder at a time when the company did not have sufficient distributable reserves, making the payments unlawful, could later be reclassified as salary payments.

Facts

Delivering on the announcement in the Autumn Budget, HMRC issued its consultation "Protecting your taxes in insolvency" on 26 February 2019. The consultation proposes legislation that will give HMRC the elevated status to secondary preferential creditor in a company's insolvency. If this is implemented, HMRC will have priority to recover certain taxes from insolvent businesses ahead of other creditors from 6 April 2020.

In a decision to be welcomed by ratepayers, the Court of Appeal in Rossendale Borough Council and others v. Hurstwood Properties (A) Limited and others [2019] EWCA Civ 364 has confirmed that certain types of mitigation schemes are not sufficient to pierce the corporate veil and transfer liability for business rates to the beneficiaries of those schemes.

Liability for business rates

A year after its collapse, Carillion's insolvency continues to haunt both its supply chain and the wider UK construction industry. Many of those left unpaid had spent months chasing Carillion for payment, all the while staving off payment demands from others. Overnight, their debts became unsecured. The flow of cash from Carillion that would have paid its supply chain dried up. A cascade of consequential insolvencies was inevitable.

In the recent decision in LBI EHF v. Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719, the Court of Appeal has considered the close-out valuation provisions for "repo" trades entered into under a Global Master Repurchase Agreement (2000 edition). The court refused to limit the wide discretion given to a non-defaulting party to determine fair market value under the GMRA.

The factual background