This is the message the courts are sending to office holders seeking approval of their fees. In two recent English High Court decisions, both handed down by HHJ Cawson KC, the courts clearly expect office-holders, as fiduciaries, to produce a sufficient and proportionate level of information to justify the level of fees being claimed.

In a recent ruling (NMC Health PLC (in Administration) v Ernst & Young LLP [2024] EWHC 2905 (Comm)), the High Court declined to order disclosure of witness statements and transcripts of interviews conducted by administrators during their initial investigations, citing litigation privilege.

Litigation privilege

The question of whether it is competent for the court to order a retrospective administration order has been the subject of much debate before the English courts. However, until now, there have been no reported Scottish decisions dealing with the point.

Shareholder disputes can often be complex and emotionally charged, particularly in small or family-owned companies where personal relationships and business interests are deeply intertwined. When such disputes reach an impasse, the law provides several mechanisms for resolution. In particular, disgruntled shareholders have the ability to bring statutory based claims against the company.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Invesus Group Limited [2024] NSWSC 867). Justice Ball determined that admission of a proof of debt by a liquidator was not akin to a judgment or settlement, and that such an admission did not create a new liability of the company.

In March 2015 the major high street retailer British Home Stores (BHS) was acquired for £1 by Retail Acquisitions Limited (RAL), a company owned by Mr Dominic Chappell. Mr Chappell became a director of the BHS entities upon completion of the purchase, together with three other individuals.

What happens to a company at the end of an administration is a question that probably only keeps insolvency anoraks up at night.

There are a limited number of potential options, with the rescue of the company as a going concern being the number one objective to which all administrators aspire. However, more often than not, an administration will end with the company entering liquidation or, where the company has no property to permit a distribution to creditors, the dissolution of the company.

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (In the matter of Pacific Plumbing Group Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2024] NSWSC 525), Justice Black determined that a payment made by a third party was not an unfair preference because the payment did not diminish assets available to creditors.

Key Takeaways

When individuals and certain entities (such as partnerships, trusts and other unincorporated bodies) have debts that they are unable to repay to their creditors, they may consider or be faced with bankruptcy, which is known as sequestration in Scotland. However, sequestration is just one avenue. Alternative statutory debt solutions are available, which can provide breathing space and allow debts to be repaid over time, without creditor pressure.

While franchising has typically been a more robust business model than others, it remains susceptible to broader economic and sectoral pressures, as The Body Shop’s recent entry into administration demonstrates.

In the unfortunate event that a franchisor or franchisee becomes insolvent, disruption is inevitable. However, insolvency doesn’t necessarily spell a terminal outcome. In this article we consider some of the key considerations for both franchisors and franchisees.

Handling franchisee insolvency: the franchisor’s approach