OSCR report issued following investigation of benefits to employee on wind-up
Lazari GP Ltd v Jervis
When a company goes into administration, it benefits from a "moratorium" that prevents creditors taking legal and other proceedings against the company or its assets. The main purpose of the moratorium is to free an administrator's rescue attempts from the distractions of legal action from creditors.
It is always an interesting question as to what rights a lender has with respect to a motor vehicle owned by a consumer who becomes insolvent, and whether a secured creditor is able to seize a motor vehicle in order to satisfy an obligation due under a loan. The answer may be surprising. The recent BC Court of Appeal case, Atwal (Re) (2011 BCSC 687), highlights the rights of a debtor vis-à-vis a trustee in bankruptcy with respect to the ownership of a motor vehicle.
Whether a lease is a “true” or “finance” lease has been debated in Canadian courts for decades in many different contexts. The consequences of the categorization of a lease can have a material impact on the recovery that a lessor may have in an insolvency of its lessee. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench recently released its decision in the matter of Royal Bank of Canada v. Cow Harbour Ltd. and 1134252 Alberta Ltd. (“Cow Harbour”) on January 23, 2012.
The recent flurry of news reports regarding the administration of high street retail chains and the subsequent sale of parts of their businesses is perhaps an opportune time to flag up the renewed importance that the hypothec plays in Scottish property law.
By virtue of the hypothec, in insolvency, a landlord automatically obtains a fixed charge ranking on the proceeds of sale of the moveable goods of the tenant that are on the premises as at the point of insolvency, up to the value of any arrears of rent.
Agreements with administrators often contain provisions to the effect that any claim against the company in administration will rank only as an unsecured claim and not as an expense of the administration. Although such provisions are common, there has always been some doubt as to their efficacy.
Recently, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision in the Nortel Networks and Lehman Brothers disputes. The judgment confirms that liabilities under Financial Support Directions (FSDs) and Contribution Notices (CNs), which are issued by the Pensions Regulator, will rank ahead of almost all other claims when a company becomes insolvent. The discussions in the case focused on whether FSDs and CNs are classed as 'provable debts', expenses of the insolvency or, indeed, neither.
In Finnerty v Clark, the Court of Appeal has given guidance on what constitutes "good and sufficient" grounds for the removal of administrators. In this case, shareholders of a company in administration were also substantial creditors of the company. They wished the administrators to raise proceedings under Section 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (extortionate credit transactions) to challenge loan agreements that had been entered into by the company prior to administration.
The recent case of Stephen Petitioner offers some clarification regarding issues relating to the validity of appointment of administrators.
The Facts
Sections 216 and 217 of the Insolvency Act impose draconian sanctions on directors of liquidated companies who reuse "prohibited names". Prohibited names are names that are identical to, or "suggest an association with", a company that has gone into liquidation and of which they were previously directors. The sanctions include criminal penalties and personal liability for debts. It has always been difficult for advisers to confidently advise directors whether a proposed name for a new company would be a prohibited name, given the vague nature of the phrase "suggest an association".