On 25 February 2020, the High Court handed down an important ruling: Granville Technology Group Limited (In Liquidation) and Others v Elpida Memory (Europe) Gmbh and Others [2020] EWHC 415 (Comm). This is the first ruling by an English Court on how the Limitation Act 1980 should be applied to secret cartel claims.

Systems Building Services Group Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch)

Liquidation is not a panacea for the relevance and application of directors' duties. A practical example of which involves a director of a company in insolvency procuring and agreeing to an off-market sale of a property to himself by a rogue IP at a price which he knew to be a significant undervalue.

Pension Schemes Bill – Additional hurdle for English law restructurings?

The intention was that the Pension Schemes Bill would enhance the Pensions Regulator’s powers to respond earlier when employers fail to take their pension responsibilities seriously, targeting “reckless bosses who plunder people’s pension pots”. However, the new criminal offences proposed as part of the Bill may inadvertently create additional hurdles for English law restructurings, making them potentially more expensive and difficult.

The Pension Schemes Bill promised in the Queen’s Speech has been introduced into Parliament. At nearly 200 pages the Bill is comprehensive, wide-ranging and ticks many of the boxes on the Pensions Regulator’s wish list. It substantially reflects the Bill which briefly appeared in the autumn: this time, it seems likely to make it to the statute book. The Bill as drafted has potentially far-reaching implications, if it is passed substantially in its current form.

Transactions and restructuring

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has held once again that the Insolvency Directive does not require member states to put measures in place to fully fund lost pension rights on the insolvency of an employer. This conclusion is contrary to some reporting in the pensions press earlier today.

Judge Barber has considered the order of priority of payments in an administration and - more specifically - whether the Lundy Granite principle applies to both the rent payable once a company has gone into administration, and to the “top up” obligation requiring the company to replenish a rent deposit, where a landlord had drawn down on the deposit against unpaid rent (Re London Bridge Entertainment Partners LLP (in administration) [2019] EWHC 2932 (CH)).

The Rules

Background

The aim of the compensation order regime, to make directors financially account for the consequences of their unfit conduct, applies to directors’ conduct after 1 October 2015 and gives the Secretary of State (“SoS”) the power to apply for a compensation order against a director who is either subject to a disqualification order or who has given a disqualification undertaking and the conduct of that person has caused loss to one or more creditors of the insolvent company.

A recent TCC decision has provided further guidance on a liquidator’s options when seeking payments owed to insolvent companies through adjudication and the interplay with the Insolvency Rules. The decision establishes an exception to the general principle that such adjudication proceedings will not be enforced (and are liable to be injuncted) where the responding party has a cross-claim.

The recently published Pension Schemes Bill provides for major extensions of the Pensions Regulator's powers, including the creation of new criminal offences which are very broad in scope and could potentially catch a wide range of people. Whilst the Bill is not set to become law this side of the general election, it seems likely that a future government will seek to enact the measures contained in the Bill, many of which are likely to command cross-party support. 

Following an expedited trial, the High Court has rejected an application brought by a group of landlords known as the Combined Property Control Group (“CPC”) to challenge the company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) proposed by Debenhams Retail Limited (“Debenhams”).

CPC challenged the CVA on five grounds. The judge in the case, Mr Justice Norris, held that four of the five grounds failed and directed certain “Forfeiture Restraint Provisions” be removed from the CVA as a result of the fifth.