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.

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.

The CVA challenge

The landlords’ claim against the Debenhams CVA was put forward on five grounds:

1. Future rent is not a “debt” and so the landlords are not creditors, such that the CVA cannot bind them

REJECTED: The definition of “debt” is broad enough to include pecuniary contingent liabilities, such as future rent.

2. A CVA cannot operate to reduce rent payable under leases: it is automatically unfairly prejudicial

Less than four years after the last fiscal amnesty, on 5 August, the Romanian government published a fiscal amnesty ordinance (No. 6/2019) that sets the framework for restructuring the debt of taxpayers with outstanding tax obligations and for the cancellation of accessory obligations.

On 13 June 2019 the new Insolvency Law(DIFC Law No. 1 of 2019) and the associated Insolvency Regulations 2019 (the “Law”) came in to effect in the Dubai International Finance Centre (“DIFC”) repealing and replacing the DIFC’s Insolvency Law of 2009 (the “Old Law”).

In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

A recent High Court decision considered the duty of Law of Property Act (LPA) receivers when selling secured property to an associated company of the creditor. The LPA receivers were chartered surveyors, appointed by the creditor in respect of a cider factory over which it had security and were alleged to have acted in bad faith by preferring the interests of the creditor over the interests of the debtor company.

Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on February 20 in the much-watched and even more intensely discussed trademark dispute Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents the difficult and multifaceted question: Does bankruptcy law insulate the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark despite the bankrupt trademark licensor’s decision to “reject” the remaining term of the trademark license?

A real, as opposed to remote, risk of insolvency is not necessarily enough for the duties of a board of directors to switch from being owed to its shareholders to being owed to its creditors.