On 13 May 2015, the Government announced that it intends to give the courts the power to overrule the rejection by secured creditors of arrangements under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 (the “Act”).

There is scant detail in the announcement save that it is intended to “support mortgage holders who are in arrears” and that legislation is to be brought forward before the Summer recess. How is such legislation likely to work and what potential frailties could it have?

The Issue

Insolvency practitioners often encounter difficulties when trying to sell properties in residential developments because an original management company has been struck off the Register of Companies. The standard approach can be laborious and costly. A more cost efficient alternative is often available.

In a number of recent cases, borrowers have produced a detailed forensic analysis of the accrual of interest on their accounts by lenders alleging that any error in the calculation of interest invalidates the demand made by the lender and any appointment of a receiver on foot thereof.

The insolvency of the borrower is a standard event of default in facility agreements. As well as covering the borrower's cash flow insolvency, these clauses also often cover other, earlier signs of distress. Two recent cases have seen lenders try to exploit these outer reaches of their insolvency event of default clauses. Hayley Çapani and Adam Pierce explain why these cases are significant for parties negotiating new deals, and for lenders considering their enforcement options on existing deals.

Negotiations with creditors for rescheduling

In Re JT Frith Limited [2012] EWHC 196 (Ch):

• the terms of an intercreditor agreement; and
• some unwitting help from the junior creditors,

enabled a senior secured lender to benefit indirectly from the prescribed part on the insolvency of its debtor.

Existing law at a glance

The Enterprise Act 2002 introduced the prescribed part under a new section 176A(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. It reserves part of the floating charge recoveries for unsecured creditors.

Since then, the courts have held that:

KEY POINTS

InJ.D. Brian Ltd (in liquidation) & Others the High Court held that, where a floating charge crystallised prior to the commencement of a winding-up, the preferential creditors still had priority pursuant to in section 285 of the Companies Act 1963 over the holder of what had become a fixed charge.

The English court of appeal has held that a company should not be held to be balance sheet insolvent on the sole basis that its liabilities (including contingent and prospective liabilities) exceed its assets.

In BNY Corporate Trustee Services v Eurosail & Ors, the Court of Appeal considered in detail, for the first time, the construction of section 123 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986, which sets out circumstances in which a company can be deemed to be unable to pay its debts.

The relevant portions of section 123 provide as follows:

In Re: Michael McLoughlin Pharmacy Ltd. The examiner sought the High Court’s approval for a scheme of arrangement which limited his liability for negligence. The secured creditor objected as a matter of principle because such limitations of liability had become commonplace in schemes. The secured creditor made it clear that there was no suggestion of any negligence by the examiner in the particular case.

The court considered:

InDellway and Ors. v National Asset Management Agency & Ors., a number of companies and Paddy McKillen appealed a decision of the High Court in relation to the purported acquisition of €2∙1 billion in loans to the appellant companies by NAMA.

The appeal was brought on five grounds: