What section 380A means for administrators

We recently achieved a significant milestone by obtaining permission from the Royal Court of Guernsey for Joint Administrators to make a distribution to unsecured creditors during an administration. This marks the first order granted under section 380A of the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008.

As we know, the past two years have been a difficult time for many businesses and with such continuing uneconomic uncertainly, it seems there is precious little light at the end of the tunnel yet.

In this article, we consider the potential claims that might be levied at directors of an insolvent company and matters of which directors should be aware.

"Zone of insolvency”

The Royal Court of Guernsey has recently considered an application under the Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008 (the Law) for the Court to approve a contract for the sale of the assets of a Guernsey company in compulsory liquidation. The decision provides helpful guidance for liquidators and creditors as to the issues the Court will take into account in deciding whether to grant such approval.

Background

The impact of Covid-19 on businesses has already been significant, with several high-profile businesses in the UK and the Channel Islands ceasing to trade or entering administration. The sudden drop in custom as a result of restrictions imposed to protect the community from Covid-19 (the Restrictions) have resulted in businesses experiencing severe, if not crippling, cash flow issues.

In Autumn 2018 the States of Guernsey proposed changes to Guernsey’s corporate insolvency regime to come into effect in 2019.  On 15 January 2020 the States of Guernsey enacted these changes with the passing of the Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 (the Ordinance).

The Ordinance brings into effect the proposed changes to create a structured, flexible and transparent regime for company insolvency procedures in Guernsey, as is required in a modern jurisdiction.  A summary of the main changes is set out below.

Administration

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer