Introduction

It seems like a week hasn't passed recently without some new global macro shock hitting our screens, resulting in the economic rollercoaster ride on which we find ourselves.

Relief under ss 423-425 Insolvency Act 1986 is not limited to cases of insolvency, as the decision of David Edwards KC, sitting as a High Court judge in the Commercial Court, in Integral Petroleum SA v Petrogat FZE & Ors ([2023] EWHC 44 (Comm)) demonstrates.

Following the important decision in Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2022] (see our summary here), LDC (Portfolio One) Ltd v George Downing Construction

mourant.com 2021934/73079902/3 GUIDE Liquidating an insolvent Jersey company Last reviewed: February 2023 Contents When is a company insolvent? 2 Désastre proceedings under the Bankruptcy Law 2 Who may make an application?

mourant.com 2021934/73072975/2 GUIDE Challenging transactions in a Jersey insolvency Last reviewed: January 2023 Contents When is a company insolvent?

NGI Systems & Solutions Ltd v The Good Box Co Labs Ltd [2023] EWHC 274 (Ch) records the court’s reasons for sanctioning a restructuring plan made between the defendant company, The Good Box Co Labs Limited, its members, and separate classes of its creditors pursuant to section 901F Companies Act 2006. It also deals with other matters arising out of the company’s administration.

During the lifetime of a company some of the most difficult problems that a director faces are encountered if the company is in financial difficulty: not yet unable to pay its bills and insolvent but with a possibility that it may get to that position. At that stage the decisions made by a director may affect not only the survival and future of the company but also the director's own position.

Summary and comment

The Bankruptcy (Netting, Contractual Subordination and Non-petition Provisions) (Jersey) Law 2005 (the Netting Law) is a short law, expressed in seven articles, which gives statutory confirmation that netting, contractual subordination and non-petition provisions in agreements are enforceable in accordance with their terms before and after bankruptcy.

Despite the “elegance” of the arguments challenging  the calling of creditors’ meetings on behalf of the former CEO, who argued that the rights of “B” shareholders including himself, would be adversely affected, Trower J found that as neither the contractual terms of the rights themselves nor their economic value would be affected by the plans, he would order calling of the meetings under section 901C(3) Companies Act 2006. There was no real change to the economic value for the B shareholders.  

ICC Judge Barber’s judgment in the case of Purkiss v Kennedy & ors (Re Ethos Solutions Ltd) [2022] EWHC 3098 (Ch) deals with a complex and late application for joinder and to re-amend proceedings. It was handed down following a four day hearing and weighs in at over 200 paragraphs, facts indicative of the unusual nature of the application.