The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling from 2015 that a former director of a car dealership was personally liable to a customer who paid the company for three vehicles in the weeks prior to the company's liquidation where the cars were ultimately not delivered to the customer due to the company's liquidation.

Background

Following on from our recent blog post on Ralls Builders Limited (in liquidation) [2016] EWHC 243 (Ch), in which Mr Justice Snowdon discussed the issues around wrongful trading under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the quantum of liability that may be placed on directors who continue to trade when they knew, or ought to have known, that the company was insolvent, the Financial Reporting Council (“FRC”) has issued new guidance on the going concern basis of accounting and reporting on solvency and liquidity risks.

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal has seemingly halted a trend towards leniency in the High Court in applications for the restriction and disqualification of directors of insolvent companies, particularly where the company has been struck off the register of companies for failing to file annual returns.

The Irish High Court recently, for the first time, recognised and gave effect to a Swiss law insolvency and restructuring process that had been commenced in Switzerland in respect of a Swiss company.

The High Court has found two former directors of a car dealership in Dublin, Appleyard Motors Limited (In Liquidation) (Appleyard), personally liable to a former customer who paid for but did not receive three vehicles in the weeks leading up to the company’s liquidation. This case is particularly noteworthy as it is only the second time a director has been held personally liable for a company’s debts for reckless trading.

The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act (the Act) recently received Royal Assent. The Act introduces a number of new provisions across a wide range of issues, including regulatory reform, public sector procurement and companies. In relation to the insolvency and restructuring sector, there are a number of provisions which are likely to garner significant interest in the coming months.

Singularis Holdings Limited v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2014] UKPC 36

PricewaterhouseCoopers v Saad Investments Company Limited [2014] UKPC 35

The Privy Council gives credence to the concept of “modified universalism” (being the court’s common law power to assist foreign winding up proceedings) and notes some of the circumstances which would permit a “stranger” to a winding up order the opportunity to challenge that order.

The facts:

The High Court and the Supreme Court recently confirmed a Scheme of Arrangement for SIAC Construction Limited (SCL) and certain related companies despite objections from a number of creditors. The creditors claimed that the exclusion of claims for penalties, interest and, in particular, damages not awarded by a certain date and the imposed waiver of subrogated claims was unfairly prejudicial.

Initial Confirmation Hearing

A former director of Custom House Capital Limited (CHC) was recently found by the High Court to have fraudulently misrepresented to an investor that her €145,000 investment in the company was “safe” a year before CHC's collapse.

In March 2010 Ms Tressan Scott entered into a Subordinated Loan Agreement with CHC pursuant to which she loaned the sum of €145,000 to CHC. At the time the agreement was signed, Ms Scott was recovering from treatment for Lymphoma.

Summary

On 18 December 2013, judgment of the High Court in England and Wales was handed down in a case relating to the insolvency of Lehman Brothers companies (In the Matters of Storm Funding Limited (In Administration) and Others [2013] EWHC 4019 (Ch)).