The case of Re Premier FX Limited (in Liquidation) highlights the potentially dire consequences for a creditor who does not file their proof of debt by a set deadline - and makes clear that mistakenly forgetting to do so is not a sufficient excuse.
Premier FX was in business as a foreign exchange dealer and money transfer agent. Financial advice was sought when it became clear to the (newly appointed) directors that the claims received from customers exceed the balance of the funds held by the company.
A pizza boss has been handed an eight-year director disqualification for failing to maintain adequate records to explain how a £50,000 bounceback loan was used.
R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court [2021] EWHC 3013
The case of Palmer has confirmed that an insolvency practitioner in the role of an administrator can be prosecuted (and therefore personally liable) for a failure to follow correct redundancy procedures prescribed by s194 TULRCA.
Where an individual is found to have acted in breach of s194, they may be personally liable to an unlimited fine (or a fine of up to £5,000 if the offence is committed before 12 March 2015).
The facts
Despite calls upon the government to intervene and, later, attempts to sell the business, the South West construction firm Midas has collapsed into administration this week.
The collapse of the business has led to over 300 redundancies, though it is understood that a section of the business (Mi-Space) has been sold, saving over 50 jobs. Concerns have also been raised about the knock-on effort on sub-contractors and connected businesses, many of whom have been left out of pocket through unfulfilled contracts and unpaid invoices.
When the availability of bounceback loans was announced, it was heralded as the way for small businesses to quickly and easily access loans of between £2,000 and £50,000 during the COVID pandemic. Undoubtedly, it has helped a significant number of small businesses to weather the storm that COVID brought on many.
On 12 January 2022, the English High Court granted Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited’s (“Smile” or the “Company”) application to convene a single meeting of plan creditors (the super senior creditors) to vote on the Company’s proposed restructuring plan (the “Restructuring Plan”). It is the first plan to use section 901C(4) of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”) to exclude other classes of creditors and shareholders from voting on the Restructuring Plan on the basis that they have no genuine economic interest in the Company.
Background
On the 19th of August 2021, the English High Court sanctioned a Part 26A restructuring plan proposed by the administrators of Amicus Finance plc (in administration) (“Amicus”) for the company’s solvent exit from administration, enabling the company to be rescued as a going concern (the “Restructuring Plan”).
On 29 September 2021, the English High Court rejected a challenge in respect of Caff Nero's company voluntary arrangement ("CVA"), brought by a landlord on the grounds of material irregularity and unfair prejudice. The single disgruntled landlord, with the backing of the EG Group ("EG") (who were interested in acquiring Caff Nero), argued that the directors of the company and the CVA nominees breached their respective duties in refusing to adjourn or postpone the electronic voting process to vote on the CVA, after EG had submitted an eleventh-hour offer for Caff Nero.
The temporary restrictions on winding-up petitions brought in under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) are wider than originally envisaged when first announced by the government in April 2020 and have now been extended until 30 September 2021.
The temporary restrictions on winding-up petitions brought in under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) are wider than originally envisaged when first announced by the government in April 2020 and have now been extended until 30 June 2021.