The recent High Court decision in Re Petropavlovsk Plc [2022] EWHC 2097 (Ch) considers the interaction of UK insolvency procedure and the sanctions regime imposed on Russia.
Background
Administrators were appointed to the English holding company of Russian gold mining group, Petropavlovsk Plc, in July 2022. The holding company was not sanctioned but sanctions had affected its ability to refinance and to pay its debts as they fell due.
The UK insolvency statistics released on 2 August for Q2 2022 (1 April – 30 June 2022) make for fairly sombre, if not entirely unsurprising, reading.
An 81% increase in corporate insolvencies in England and Wales from the same period in 2021 and a 13% increase in insolvencies from Q1 2022. The worst affected sectors are reported to include food, retail and construction.
Key Points
On 15 August 2022, the UK High Court handed down judgment in Oceanfill Ltd v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd and Cannons Group Ltd.
Background
The claim was for rent and other arrears by Oceanfill, the landlord of a gym in Leeds. It was brought against Nuffield, the original tenant and Cannons, the original guarantor under the lease.
Nuffield had assigned the lease to Virgin Active in 2000, guaranteeing the performance of Virgin Active as tenant and Cannons had given a guarantee of Nuffield's obligations.
Virgin Active restructuring plan
Nostrum Oil & Gas PLC’s scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Scheme”) was sanctioned on 26 August 2022, with the “scheme effective date” occurring on 31 August 2022.
In Short
The Situation: As businesses continue to grapple with realising the value of business and assets which are potentially impacted by sanctions related to Russia's war in Ukraine, an English company recently utilised an insolvency process to seek court approval for a proposed divestment.
Restructuring and Insolvency analysis: The respondents to a claim brought by the joint liquidators of BHS Group companies have successfully struck out parts of claims brought under sections 212 and 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) on the basis of open-ended pleadings as to the relevant date of knowledge that insolvent liquidation was inevitable and trading should have ceased.
Chandler v Wright and others [2022] EWHC 2205 (Ch)
What are the practical implications of this case?
Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli details a case where the court considered the issue of protecting assets that are subject to a proprietary claim.
A High Court ruling regarding frozen assets can be seen as a positive outcome for both the claimant and potential claimants in future such cases.
The ruling has shown that the courts will be robust when it comes to protecting assets over which a proprietary claim is being made.
Case Background
The Hong Kong commercial and insolvency disputes team acted for the successful appellant in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam -v- Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP CACV 393/2021 [2022] HKCA 1297.
When a company is insolvent, the directors of a company are under a duty to protect the interests of the company’s creditors. Directors can therefore be liable for the actions they take before a company stops trading and also during insolvency. This includes:
(a) Wrongful trading If directors continue to run a business and incur further credits and debts despite knowing there was no way of the company avoiding insolvency, they may be liable for wrongful trading.