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".

Much attention in the commercial bankruptcy world has been devoted recently to judicial pronouncements concerning whether the practice of senior creditor class “gifting” to junior classes under a chapter 1 1 plan violates the Bankruptcy Code’s “absolute priority rule.” Comparatively little scrutiny, by contrast, has been directed toward significant developments in ongoing controversies in the courts regarding the absolute priority rule outside the realm of senior class gifting— namely, in connection with the “new value” exception to the rule and whether the rule was written out of the Bankr

As reported in our recent e-update on the case of Echelon Wealth Management Limited (in liquidation), Lord Glennie has determined that liquidators who are removed from office have no right to retain assets as security for remuneration and costs.  Lord Glennie then went on to consider how the court, in determining the level of a liquidator’s remuneration, should view the conduct of the liquidator. 

In a recent case in relation to the liquidation of Echelon Wealth Management Limited ("E"), Lord Glennie has decided that upon removal as liquidator, a former liquidator may not retain from the assets of the liquidated company any sum as security for costs.

The Facts

S&C were appointed joint liquidators of E at a creditors meeting on 16 December 2008. At a creditors meeting on 22 July 2009, they were then removed from office with new joint liquidators being appointed.

The enduring impact of the Great Recession on businesses, individuals, municipalities, and even sovereign nations has figured prominently in world headlines during the last three years. Comparatively absent from the lede, however, has been the plight of charitable and other nonprofit entities that depend in large part on the largesse of donors who themselves have been less able or less willing to provide eleemosynary institutions with badly needed sources of capital in the current economic climate.

In its ministerial statement this week in relation to its consultation on the proposals for a restructuring moratorium, the Government has indicated that it now proposes to consider implementing measures to tackle the unreasonable use of termination clauses in insolvencies.

What Are Termination Clauses?

Termination clauses are, of course, found in most commercial agreements and are a means by which a party may terminate an agreement on the occurrence of certain events (invariably including insolvency of the other party).

In the recent English Court of Appeal case of Rubin v Coote, the court allowed a liquidator to settle litigation without having obtained the agreement of all creditors to the compromise.

The Facts

When a company that has been designated a responsible party for environmental cleanup costs files for bankruptcy protection, the ramifications of the filing are not limited to a determination of whether the remediation costs are dischargeable claims. Another important issue is the circumstances under which contribution claims asserted by parties coliable with the debtor will be allowed or disallowed in the bankruptcy case. This question was the subject of rulings handed down early in 2011 by the New York bankruptcy court presiding over the chapter 11 cases of Lyondell Chemical Co.

The recent Court of Session case of Tayplan Limited (in administration) v Smith, is particularly interesting as it is a case where the administrator chose to pursue directors for breach of fiduciary duties rather than using any of the more common statutory remedies.

The Facts

Tayplan Limited was a family business with two directors - Mr Smith senior and Mr Smith junior. Mr Smith senior and his wife each held 50% of the shares in the Company.

The Insolvency Service ("IS") has published a consultation on proposed reform to the regulation of insolvency practitioners. The consultation responds to various recommendations made last year by the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") in their study entitled, "The Market for Corporate Insolvency Practitioners".