Re Christophorus 3 Limited [2014] EWHC 1162 (Ch)
An investigation is to be carried out into the causes of the bankruptcy of OW Bunker (“OWB”), the largest ship fuel supplier in the world. Investigators from two Danish law firms and Ernst & Young will try to establish the reasons for the failure of OWB less than a year after it was listed at a value of $1 billion. OWB has blamed its failure on hedging losses of $150 million, attributable to the falling price of oil and on a credit line estimated at between $120 and $130 million given by OWB’s subsidiary in Singapore, Dynamic Oil Trading (“DOT
D & D Wines was a leading distributor of wines, which went into administration. One of its clients was an Australian wine producer called Angove. Two of Angove’s customers, who dealt through D & D, paid the company shortly after it had gone into administration and after Angove had terminated the agency agreement. Despite this, the Court of Appeal ruled that the money belonged to the company in administration for the benefit of all its creditors and was not held on trust for Angove.
Re Christophorus 3 Limited [2014] EWHC 1162 (Ch)
Commercial landlords will be familiar with the practice that has grown up since the 2010 case of Goldacre of putting companies into administration immediately following a quarter day. By adopting this tactic, administrators have been able to avoid paying rent as an administration expense until the next quarter day while continuing to use the premises for the benefit of the administration.
The Illinois Supreme Court recently provided certainty to dissolving corporations with respect to the risk of facing a lawsuit even after it has long since dissolved. Illinois permits lawsuits against dissolved corporations for up to five years after the corporation has ceased to exist. The Supreme Court clarified that only those claims that have accrued prior to the corporation's dissolution (i.e., the injury occurred prior to dissolution) may be brought in that five-year period.
The 7th Circuit has again left a disappointed creditor with no recourse because of the creditor's failure to do basic investigation or take steps to protect itself. (On Command Video Corporation vs. Samuel J. Roti, Nos. 12-1351 and 12-1430, January 14, 2013). This case follows other cases in which the 7th Circuit has shown itself decidedly unfriendly to creditors who sought compensation through the courts in failed business ventures but could have, but failed, to prevent their unfortunate situation.
A problem frequently faced by landlords in the current economic climate is that of tenants who time their entry into administration so that it takes place just after rent payable in advance on a quarter day has fallen due. This growing practice has left landlords frustrated and out of pocket.
In our last issue, we looked at the implications for out-of-court administrations where the company or directors seek to appoint an administrator under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, but then discover that between filing their notice of intention to appoint and their notice of appointment, a winding-up petition has been presented, triggering paragraph 25 of the Schedule. Paragraph 25 prevents the appointment of an administrator under paragraph 22 where there is a pending winding-up petition.
When being sued, corporate and individual defendants should always confirm that the plaintiff has not been previously discharged in bankruptcy and failed to disclose the claim in the proceeding as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In Guay v. Burack, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012), the plaintiff brought numerous claims against various governmental entities, governmental officials and a police officer.