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”).
On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling in the case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The decision resolves a circuit split, holding that a licensee may retain its right to use licensed trademarks, notwithstanding the debtor-licensor’s rejection of the contract in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court’s decision has potentially far-reaching implications.
In normal circumstances, a director’s primary duty (owed to the company, not the company’s shareholders or the corporate group) is to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its shareholders as a whole. When a company enters a period of financial distress (the so-called “zone of insolvency”) there is a shift of emphasis in the duties of the directors: directors must consider the interests of the company’s creditors and, depending on the extent of the financial distress, may need to prioritise such interests over those of its members.
When a company enters a period of financial distress, directors must consider the interests of the company’s creditors and, depending on the extent of the financial distress, may need to prioritise such interests over those of its members. In such distressed situations, the key current heads of liability directors may face (for which they may potentially incur personal liabilities) include wrongful trading, fraudulent trading, misfeasance and breach of duty.
On April 23, 2019, Ropes & Gray, representing a large group of shareholder defendants, won a decision in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that provides potential fraudulent transfer protection for payments made to shareholders in leveraged buyouts, stock redemptions and other securities transactions.
Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Claims and the Securities Safe Harbor
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.