The case concerned royalty payments, which a creditor had a contractual right to receive, arising from iron ore produced at a mine in Sierra Leone.
Background
The case concerned royalty payments, which a creditor had a contractual right to receive, arising from iron ore produced at a mine in Sierra Leone.
The parent company of the Sierra Leonean mining company went into administration and administrators from PwC were appointed. The creditor's director called the administrators to stress the importance of bringing the royalty payments to the attention of a third party purchaser.
The administrators subsequently sold the mine, but did not make the purchaser aware of the royalty issue.
Situation before Brexit
Currently, a UK court’s decision to open insolvency proceedings, and the subsequent proceedings, are automatically recognised under Articles 16 and 17 of the European Insolvency Regulation.
Recognition of insolvency proceedings
After Brexit, it is most likely that the UK will be treated as a non-Member State (unless the UK reaches any special agreement with the EU).
Summary
In April 2017, important changes were effected in connection with German insolvency law and the avoidance of certain antecedent transactions.
Case law had greatly increased the risk of insolvency administrators successfully clawing back assets from creditors of the insolvent entity, which the reforms now address.
Background
For a clawback claim based on intent (Vorsatzanfechtung) to succeed, an insolvency administrator has to prove that:
German insolvency law contains provisions that allow for the challenge of payments/securitisation of certain shareholder loans in insolvency proceedings. The reason for this is that under German insolvency law, a loan repayment claim of a shareholder against ‘his’ corporation is subordinated by law (sec. 39 para. 1 no. 5 German Insolvency Code).
On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.
The result is clear and not a surprising one. The judgments are less clear however. The Court highlighted the difficulties in developing illegality principles of general application for future cases, but then decided now was not the time to try.
Illegality, attribution of knowledge, and Stone & Rolls: Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited
On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited1, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.