On 11 February 2021, the English High Court confirmed in gategroup Guarantee Limited that restructuring plans are insolvency proceedings so are not covered by the Lugano Convention.

One of the debt instruments subject to the gategroup restructuring plan contains an exclusive Swiss court jurisdiction clause. Under the Lugano Convention, proceedings relating to "civil and commercial matters" must generally be brought in the jurisdiction benefitting from the exclusive jurisdiction clause.

In a recent decision in the Admiralty Court before Mr Admiralty Registrar Davison, the Court considered the application of the recently enacted section 233B of the Insolvency Act 1986. Whilst the conclusions reached on that provision are perhaps less surprising given its wide remit, the decision raises some interesting points for contract lawyers on the formation of contracts and the reasonableness of their terms.

Introduction – Section 233B of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act)

In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.

The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.

In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.

The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.

While announcements have been made, and measures extended, to help corporate Britain, directors faced with the difficult decision of whether to trade on through the crisis could suddenly very exposed once again.

On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the "CIGA") came into effect. As anticipated in our previous article the CIGA was fast-tracked through Parliament and some amendments were ultimately made prior to it becoming law.

The decision of Mr Justice Morgan in A Company (Injunction To Restrain Presentation of Petition) [2020] EWHC 1406 (Ch) (judgment anonymised) which was handed down on 2 June 2020 will be of interest to tenants and landlords alike in the current climate. The judgment, which follows the decision in Travelodge Ltd v Prime Aesthetics Ltd [2020] EWHC 1217 (Ch) will be of huge precedent value to commercial tenants that have been impacted by coronavirus and have been unable to meet their rent obligations as a result.

Following the Government's announcement in March that the hotly anticipated changes to the UK's insolvency regime would be rushed through Parliament with further, temporary, provisions to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, insolvency practitioners and business professionals alike have been awaiting further clarity on what the Business Secretary's comments mean for businesses both in the current climate and more generally.

As businesses seek to adapt to deal with the financial impact of COVID-19, boards of directors have been faced with the difficult decision of having to file for insolvency or take steps to preserve business continuity and live to fight another day. Understandably directors' duties is a topic that has come keenly into focus with directors wishing to ensure that, whatever steps they take, they do not incur personal liability.

In the recent case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others [2016] EWHC 1686, the High Court has held for the first time that a dividend can be challenged as a transaction entered into at an undervalue within the meaning of section 423(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).

The Facts

The facts of the case are long and complex but for present purposes the pertinent facts are as follows.

Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (now Windward Prospects Limited) (“AWA”) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (“SSA”).