The recent Court of Appeal decision in Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees SA & others v Akers & another [2014] serves to emphasise that third party reports commissioned by liquidators to enable them to consider whether litigation should be commenced in order to make recoveries for the benefit of creditors will not always attract litigation privilege.
In its decision on the Game Station1 appeal, the Court of Appeal has overturned the cases of Goldacre2 and Luminar3 holding that office holders of insolvent companies must pay rent of property occupied for the benefit of creditors on a “pay as you go” basis irrespective of when rent falls due under the lease.
The facts
The English Court of Appeal decision in Caterpillar v John Holt & Company, and its analysis of “retention of title” and “no set-off” clauses, will be of interest to commodity traders, compliance officers and legal counsel in industries dealing with energy and natural resources internationally.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the trustees of two occupational defined benefit (DB) schemes can use a particular mechanism, known as a Headway agreement, to maximise the amount of s.75 debt payable by the employers.
In the case of Sarjeant and others v Rigid Group Ltd, both schemes commenced winding up in 2000. No insolvency event had occurred before the winding up in either case. The applicable legislation at the relevant time required the s.75 debt to be calculated on the MFR basis.
15 November 2013
[2013] EWCA Civ 1408
Court of Appeal (Elias, Kitchin, McCombe LJJ)
No recovery if the company has not "entered into" the transaction at an undervalue
In Re Ovenden the Court of Appeal decided that a payment made by a trustee of company money to a third party, without the company’s involvement, could not be a transaction at an undervalue under section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986 because it was not a transaction entered into by the company.
13 November 2013
[2013] EWCA Civ 1410
Court of Appeal (Maurice Kay VP, Beatson and Briggs LJJ)
Dismissing employees of an insolvent company: when is it unfair?
In Kavanagh v Crystal Palace, a number of employees of Crystal Palace football club claimed that they had been unfairly dismissed within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (‘TUPE 2006’). The Court of Appeal considered the tension between TUPE 2006 and the insolvency regime.
Commercial landlords will be familiar with the practice that has grown up since the 2010 case of Goldacre of putting companies into administration immediately following a quarter day. By adopting this tactic, administrators have been able to avoid paying rent as an administration expense until the next quarter day while continuing to use the premises for the benefit of the administration.
10 September 2013
[2013] EWHC 3351 (Ch)
Companies Court, Chancery Division (David Richards J)
Company held to be insolvent despite limited recourse stipulations
The company ARM Asset Backed Securities (“ARM”) made an application to the High Court for the appointment of provisional liquidators, having already presented a petition for just and equitable winding up.
The UK Treasury and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have been drip-feeding the industry rules and practical details of the transfer of consumer credit (CC) regulation to FCA. FCA has now published the final form of its detailed rules in its Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC), with feedback and practical advice. The rules apply from 1 April 2014 with limited grace periods only. It is critical that all firms carrying on credit-related regulated activities know what the changes mean for them.
The recent Court of Appeal decision in the Game Station case has established that administrators should pay rent on a daily basis while they are using the property. This overturns the earlier High Court decisions in the Luminar and Goldacre cases and is in keeping with the recent trend of flexibility and fairness in insolvency situations.
Leasehold property in an administration