Key points

• Care should be taken to ensure that finance documents clearly and specifically set out the intention of the parties.

• Lenders should ensure that charges created in security documents are not invalidated or altered by provisions of other finance documents.

Facts

The Facts

In between the presentation of a winding up petition and making of a winding up order, a company entered into a settlement agreement with the Respondent, who founded the company and was previously a shareholder and director of the company.

The Decision

The High Court recently decided that a prosecution could be brought against an administrator under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (TULRCA) in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court [2021] EWHC 3013.

Re Zoom UK Distribution Ltd (in administration); Wessely and another (in their capacity as joint administrators of Zoom UK Distribution Ltd (in administration)) v Rubra and others

The UK courts' latest attempt to grapple with the effects of a defect in the way administrators are appointed was recently resolved in favour of the administrators.

In Arlington Infrastructure Ltd (In administration) and another v Woolrych and others [2020] EWHC 3123 (Ch), the Court considered the meaning of a deed of priority entered into between the senior and junior secured creditors of Arlington Infrastructure Limited (AIL). The junior creditors (but not the senior creditor) also held debentures over AIL's subsidiary companies.

Licensors of intellectual property rights may soon be unable to terminate licences where the licensee has gone into an insolvency process.

What are ipso facto clauses and why do they matter?

The facts

A liquidator pursued a claim against a former director of a company, that the transfer of the company’s trading inventory in satisfaction of money owed to the former director was a transaction at an undervalue and/or a preference.

An attempt was made to grant floating charge security over the inventory, which the court found was void as it was granted for existing liabilities, at a time when the company was insolvent, to a connected party.

Key point

• In certain circumstances the court will look to parallel statutory provisions where existing applicable statute does not accommodate the situation, as long as the latter is not offended, expanded or altered by doing so.

The facts

This application for directions was brought by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (the “Company”) on:

On 15 November 2021, the English Court released its reasoned judgment for the sanction of Amicus Finance Plc's (Amicus) restructuring plan.

Background

Amicus, a short term property lender, entered administration in 2018. The administrators proposed a restructuring plan to compromise creditors' claims, exit the administration and ultimately restore the company as a going concern. The company faced imminent liquidation if the plan was not approved. Secured creditor, Crowdstacker, an online peer-to-peer lending platform, opposed the plan.

On 23 March 2021, the 2011 sale of the One Blackfriars development site in London by administrators was cleared of misfeasance by the High Court, in Re One Blackfriars Ltd [2021] EWHC 684 (Ch).

In a £250 million claim, the company's liquidators had alleged that the former administrators had breached their duties by failing to act independently of the banking syndicate which appointed them, failing to properly assess the value of the site, and selling the site at an undervalue.

Here, we recap the facts of the case and outline the key takeaways to consider.