The High Court has clarified the grounds for challenging a CVA for guarantee creditors.
Background
Mizen Design/Build Ltd's (Mizen) directors proposed a CVA stating that this would lead to a better result for unsecured creditors than the likely alternative, administration.
The CVA compromised guarantee creditors' ability both to bring a claim against Mizen and to call upon their performance guarantees against Mizen's parent company (the Parent Guarantor).
This recent decision has opened up a new opportunity for creditors who are not satisfied with a proposal to put forward their own restructuring plan.
Background
Good Box Co Labs Limited (the Company), a fintech start-up, developed contactless payment technologies in the charity sector.
It entered administration in June 2022 on the application of NGI Systems Limited (NGI) a principal technology supplier, creditor and shareholder of the Company.
CargoLogicAir Limited (the Company) was the UK's only all-cargo main deck freight airline. Due to sanctions imposed on its Russian owner, the Company was unable to effectively trade and pay its debts as they fell due despite obtaining a 'Basic Needs Licence'. Its sole director applied to appoint administrators.
Issues
The court considered two key issues:
On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published its proposal for a directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).
The Insolvency Directive seeks to offer more certainty and create a common minimum standard of insolvency regimes across member states, encouraging more effective cross-border investment.
It aims to harmonise three key areas of EU insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).
Aims law:
the recovery of assets
the efficiency of proceedings
On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published its proposal for a directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).
Aims
The Insolvency Directive seeks to offer more certainty and create a common minimum standard of insolvency regimes across Member States, encouraging more effective cross-border investment.
It aims to harmonise three key areas of EU insolvency law:
the recovery of assets
the efficiency of proceedings, and
Re Bitumina Industries Ltd (in administration); Manning and another v Neste AB and another [2022].
This was an application by joint administrators for directions on the validity of a floating charge granted to a connected party at a 'relevant time' and seemingly invalid under s245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).
Background
While an insolvency process is not always welcomed with open arms, in fraud cases it can play a key role in uncovering frauds that might otherwise have remained concealed and may result in recoveries for victims. This is because an insolvency process paves the way for an independent investigation into the company's affairs and the directors' conduct to be carried out by an insolvency practitioner (IP).
Background
Decision
Key takeaways
The recent High Court decision in Re Nostrum Oil & Gas plc [2022] EWHC 2249 (Ch) considers a scheme of arrangement where creditors are the target of Russian sanctions.
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana.
At a time when many companies are facing financial difficulties and directors are considering their legal duties, this long-awaited judgment has confirmed that directors have a 'creditor interest duty' when a company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency or an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable.
Background
The High Court has recently held that the appointment of administrators by a sole director of a company with unamended Model Articles was valid.
Background
The document allegedly appointing the administrators of the company was a standard set of board minutes, reportedly chaired by a man and recording that a quorum was present. In fact, there was no meeting, and the decision was taken alone by the sole female director.