With the gradual opening of energy supply markets allowing new energy providers to challenge the established providers and bring increased competition to the market, the last two decades have seen an increase in smaller energy providers entering the market and sharing a growing customer base. But what happens to the customers when an energy provider becomes insolvent?
To no great surprise, the Global Corporate v Hale appeal decision has gone against the director. The Court of Appeal handed down the eagerly awaited judgment on 27 November 2018.
The case of Davey v Money and Anor (2018) EWHC 766 (Ch) should serve as a gentle warning to secured creditors to be aware of the level of their involvement in the administration of a customer.
Background
Angel House Development Limited (“AHDL“), a property development company, borrowed £16 million from Dunbar Assets Plc (“Dunbar“) in order to fund the purchase and redevelopment of a property, Angel House, in Tower Hamlets. Dunbar took security for the loan(s) in the form of a debenture.
HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) has issued a consultation entitled “Tax Abuse and Insolvency: A Discussion Document” on how it proposes to confront those who misuse insolvency law as a means of avoiding or evading their tax liabilities.
In our recent article on restructuring options for retail businesses, we outlined how a number of companies in that sector had implemented or were considering Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs).
Directors against whom claims for a misfeasance have been intimated often turn to limitation and set off in defence of a request for the repayment or restoration of the relevant sums or property.
Misfeasance and limitation
While overall insolvencies fell in number in 2017 compared with 2016, the last quarter of 2017 showed an increase compared with the previous quarters which had been stable.
In those insolvencies, the vast majority are voluntary liquidations, but there is a trend of retail businesses which are struggling turning to the Company Voluntary Arrangement restructuring option, often accompanied by a managed reduction in operations.
A recent decision of the High Court (Goel and another v Grant and another [2017] EWHC 2688 (Ch)) has provided a useful reminder that care must be taken when administrators enter into pre-contract negotiations and the risk of inadvertently entering into a binding contract before terms are finalised. It also deals with the risks of disposing of assets, even those that are difficult to value, without due process.
The Facts
An out-of-hours office appointment of an administrator, although not unusual, is not a regular occurrence in the world of insolvency. It is however, exactly what happened at 4am on Monday 2 October, as Britain’s longest surviving airline brand ‘Monarch’ entered administration. The collapse of the airline comes as a result of mounting cost pressures in an increasingly competitive market and is the third European airline insolvency in 2017, following Air Berlin and Alitalia.
This article was first published in The Gazette, and the original article can be found online here.
The implementation of the Insolvency Rules 2016 has introduced a number of changes to the procedures in insolvency regimes.