The recent judgment in City Gardens Ltd v DOK82 Ltd [2023] EWHC 1149 (Ch) serves as a useful reminder of the extent of, and principles governing, the English court’s jurisdiction to wind up a company on the basis of inability to pay its debts.
Background
City Gardens Limited (C), and DOK82 Ltd (D), had entered into a “memorandum of understanding” (MoU) in relation to a significant debt owed by D to C.
The latest insolvency figures for May show insolvencies continuing to increase, with construction and retail being among the hardest-hit sectors. Company voluntary liquidations continue to top the table, accounting for 85% of the total 2,552 insolvencies for the last month. Compulsory liquidations are also on the rise, particularly driven by HMRC. Small and micro businesses (with annual sales of less than £1m) account for around 99% of all liquidations, according to PWC.
In the recent case of Avanti Communications Limited (in administration) [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch), the High Court revisited the perpetually knotty question: what level of control is necessary for a charge over assets to take effect as a fixed, rather than floating, charge?
Over the past two years, there has been an interesting trend of courts, in certain circumstances, borrowing from principles of insolvency law when determining analogous questions of trust law. Most recently, the private wealth industry has seen this very application in connection with the now infamous proceedings relating to the trust known as the Ironzar II Trust[1].
With rising insolvency rates, driven in particular by the number of creditors’ voluntary liquidations reaching record highs, the decision in the recent Court of Appeal case of PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon [2022] EWCA Civ 1319 serves as a timely reminder for directors of the personal risks involved in re-using the name of a liquidated company.
The approach of the Cayman Grand Court to the terms and timing of the discharge of provisional liquidators taken inIn the Matter of Star International Drilling Ltd may provide a window into what is expected to be a similarly flexible approach to the appointment of restructuring officers.(1)
With administration figures creeping back up after falling to low levels during the pandemic, the number of pre-pack sales of businesses in administration also appears to be on the increase. In such transactions, a purchaser acquires all, or substantially all, of the business and assets of the insolvent company from the administrator, with the terms of the deal being agreed pre-appointment and completion usually taking place immediately after the administrator takes office.
Key Points
On 22 July 2022, judgment was handed down in relation to the sanction of the first Part 26A restructuring plan to be proposed by a small–medium enterprise (SME) in Re Houst Limited [2022] EWHC 1941 (Ch). The restructuring plan (RP) procedure set out in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) has been widely considered to be out of the reach of SMEs due to excessive cost. The decision is also an interesting one for other reasons, notably the cram-down of HMRC as a dissenting creditor.