The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.

In a second application heard on the same day, Hildyard J considered an application by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Limited (LBEL) for directions that would enable a surplus to be distributed to the sole member of LBEL while LBEL remained in administration. The proposed scheme had material benefits for both shareholders and creditors. The administrators acknowledged that the orders sought were an indirect means of circumventing the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK), which does not expressly provide for directors to make distributions during an administration.

The New Zealand and UK Arbitration Acts generally require court proceedings to be stayed if the parties have agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration.

In a recent address to the Insolvency Lawyers Association, the new Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Geoffrey Vos, discussed briefly the effect of that statutory stay upon winding-up petitions.

In a recent costs decision, the English High Court partly disallowed an indemnity sought by receivers in respect of costs payable to certain third parties and the receivers' own costs and expenses for certain steps.

In the English High Court case of Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Football League Ltd (Football Association Premier League Ltd intervening) [2012] EWHC 1372 (Ch);  [2012] WLR (D) 163, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) brought a general challenge to the "football creditors rule".

The English Court of Appeal in Re Debenhams Retail Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 600 recently considered the inter-relationship between the UK Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and the ‘adoption’ of employment contacts by administrators under the Insolvency Act 1986.  The issue was whether by paying only the amounts which may be claimed under the Scheme to furloughed employees, the administrators have adopted the contracts.  Adoption means that the wages and other entitlements are payable as expenses of the administration ahead of other expenses.  

In the English High Court, the joint administrators of four English companies within the former Lehman Brothers group sought directions from the Court in respect of a proposed settlement. The settlement would put to rest substantial inter-company claims including those at issue in the 'Waterfall III' proceedings.

In Bailey v Angove's Pty Limited [2016] UKSC 47, the UK Supreme Court affirmed two principles of critical significance to insolvency practitioners.  The first is that even if the parties should agree that an agent's authority is irrevocable, it will not be treated as such unless such non-revocation is intended to secure the financial interest of the agent.  The second is that when money is paid to an agent for a consideration that the agent knows at the time of receipt must fail because of the agent's imminent insolvency, such receipt will not give rise to a rem

Bilta (UK) Limited (Bilta) and its liquidators brought a claim against the defendants for damages and equitable compensation on the basis of conspiracy to defraud and injure Bilta and for dishonest assistance by (among others) the 6th and 7th defendants in breach of fiduciary duties by Bilta's directors. The defendants argued that the unlawful conduct of Bilta's directors and sole shareholder could be attributed to the company itself, meaning that the action brought by Bilta and its liquidators would fail.

As noted in our July 2010 newsletter, lawyers are not immune from the recession.