The High Court has considered whether a former liquidator should be held liable under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”) for misapplying company monies in excess of half a million pounds.
The Facts
We are hoping to take on new premises that are currently occupied by the administrators of the previous failed tenant. They will not give an indication of when they intend to leave and this is holding up our own plans. Is there anything we can do to force the administrators to tell us when they will vacate the premises?
Moving to new premises is always stressful, and having to wait for an administrator to vacate is only going to compound the matter. This is increasingly common and can take quite some time to resolve.
McKellar v Griffin emphasises the importance for IPs of establishing the COMI of a foreign company before accepting an appointment as administrators.
In McKellar (decided in June 2014) the court, on the application of a foreign liquidator, declared that the administrators’ appointment was invalid because the company’s COMI was not in England and Wales. So where does that leave unfortunate insolvency practitioners in similar situations?
D & D Wines was a leading distributor of wines, which went into administration. One of its clients was an Australian wine producer called Angove. Two of Angove’s customers, who dealt through D & D, paid the company shortly after it had gone into administration and after Angove had terminated the agency agreement. Despite this, the Court of Appeal ruled that the money belonged to the company in administration for the benefit of all its creditors and was not held on trust for Angove.
Earlier this year, the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) published its consultation on the second PPF Levy Triennium (2015/16 to 2017/18) which proposed wholesale changes to the measure of insolvency risk and significant changes in respect of contingent assets and the PPF’s treatment of asset-backed contributions.
As we await the outcome of the consultation, employers and trustees may find a summary of the proposals helpful in trying to gauge how they could impact their scheme’s PPF levy.
The PPF-specific insolvency risk model
The English Court does not have the power under the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations to grant relief in aid of insolvency proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction which it would not have the power to grant in purely domestic proceedings. So held the Companies Court of the English High Court (Morgan J) in Re Pan Ocean Co Limited [2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch).
Shantanu Majumdar, Radcliffe Chambers, Lincoln's Inn
In our “Insolvency in the fashion retail sector: the risks and opportunities” article in the Q2 edition of Global Insight, we looked at the challenges the fashion retail industry faces today and the opportunities available for both existing players and new market entrants in the context of insolvent business acquisitions. In this article we comment in more detail on these opportunities and consider some of the factors and risks to be aware of when purchasing an insolvent fashion retail business and its assets.
OPPORTUNITY ARISES OUT OF ADVERSITY
Directors of ‘can pay, won‘t pay’ award debtors face the prospect of an extended stay in England should they choose to defy a receivership order granted by the English Court in aid of enforcement.
Introduction
Key point
This case demonstrates how reservation of legal rights can be key even if the parties are seeking a commercial solution
Facts
Key Point
Subrogation operates not by assigning the benefit of the relevant third party's security but by creating new security rights in the hands of the subrogated creditor similar to those held by that third party.
Facts