Pantiles Investments Limited & Anor v Winckler [2019] EWHC 1298 (Ch)

Background

The Liquidator of the Pantiles Investments Limited (Company) brought a claim (among others) for fraudulent trading against its former director, Ms Winckler. The claim related to a property transaction involving Ms Winkler, an associate (Mr Goldbart) and the Company. In summary, the transaction was as follows:

The Singapore High Court recently issued the first-ever super-priority order for debts arising from rescue financing under Section 211E(1)(b) of the amended insolvency laws in the Companies Act. The decision shows that the court is open to adopting relatively unique deal structures, and could be a benefit for more business-centric solutions.

In Part 1, we discussed how, despite widespread usage, termination in the event of bankruptcy clauses (“ipso facto” clauses) are generally unenforceable pursuant to the bankruptcy code. In this second part, we discuss why these clauses are still prevalent in commercial transactions and the exceptions that allow for enforceability in certain situations.

Why Do Ipso Facto Clauses Remain in Most Contracts?

If ipso facto clauses are generally not enforceable, then why do practically all commercial agreements continue to include them? There are several reasons.

Practically all commercial transactions, including licenses, services agreements, and supply agreements, contain a provision that triggers termination rights, without notice, to a party whenever the other party files for bankruptcy or experiences other insolvency-related event. In Part 1 of a two-part series, we discuss how the commonly used termination-on-insolvency clauses are generally unenforceable despite their widespread use.

Standard Ipso Facto Provision

Last year the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that a company in liquidation cannot refer a dispute to adjudication in circumstances where there are claims by a company in liquidation and cross claims by the other party1.

It looks like 2019 won't be the new start many had hoped for. With large high street retailers already teetering on the edge after a disappointing Christmas and the government still up in arms about the B word, the country's commercial real estate market is looking more and more uncertain.

From time to time the statutory rights available to parties to construction contracts appears to come into conflict with other sets of provisions that also claim to govern the same areas of dispute. Perhaps the best known such clash, between adjudication and the effect of insolvency, was that explored in the Scottish case of Melville Dundas Limited (in Receivership) v George Wimpey UK Limited[1] in 2007.

In retail bankruptcies, it is important for suppliers consigning goods to merchants to be aware of the commercial law rules governing consignments. Disputes among consignors, inventory lenders, and bankruptcy debtors have been arising frequently in retail bankruptcy cases. Disputes like these can be avoided if consignors consider the basics of commercial law rules governing consignments, particularly under the Uniform Commercial Code, and take steps to protect their rights and interests.

On 17 December 2015, the Ministry of Justice made a final decision to end the Insolvency Litigation exemption from the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LAPSO) (see

In May 2018, Mothercare and Carluccio's became the latest in an increasingly long line of high street names to propose Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs) involving significant site closures and rent reductions. On 31 May, 91% of unsecured creditors approved the Carluccio's CVA, and the following day Mothercare's creditors followed suit (although that was not the case with all of its subsidiaries, as discussed below). Next in line according to recent reports are House of Fraser and then Homebase, following the latter's acquisition for £1 by retail restructuring specialists Hilco.