It’s been a difficult last few years for the licensed trade and the hospitality and leisure sector generally, both in terms of recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic and, more recently, the wider economic challenges facing the industry.
The threat of insolvency looms large and with it comes various regulatory considerations for insolvency practitioners (IPs): firstly, liquor licensing considerations that might arise post-appointment and, secondly, broader health and safety issues that can shift into sharp focus.
Premises licences
Background
This was a conjoined appeal alongside Bresco v Lonsdale. In this case, Cannon and Primus had already participated in an adjudication, with the decision of the adjudicator favouring Primus. Primus would later enter into a Company Voluntary Arrangement.
The CVA was made on the basis that, although Primus was insolvent at the time, it would be able to satisfy its creditors if it were able to recover from Cannon and other third parties through litigation and adjudication. This was preferable to liquidation.
This case concerned both the appeal in Bresco v Lonsdale and Cannon Corporate v Primus Build. The present case comment is only concerned with the former.
Background
Bresco appealed to set aside the order of an injunction from Fraser J. That injunction prevented the continuation of an adjudication in which Bresco and Lonsdale (in liquidation) sought sums from each other in claims and cross-claims.
Introduction
The recent decision of Andrew Burrows QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, in Palliser Limited v Fate Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] EWHC 43 (QB), is a useful reminder of the difficulties that can arise where one party (here a tenant) relies on another (its landlord) to take out insurance.
The Facts
In 2010, a fire started at the ground floor restaurant owned and operated by a company called Fate Limited (“Fate”). It was not in dispute that the fire was caused by Fate’s negligence.
The case confirmed that the provisions of the CPR apply to applications for an extension of time to apply for rescission of a winding up order. The case further stated that any such extensions of time should be exceptional and for a very short period.
Facts
Facts
This case concerned the rejection by the liquidators of Saff One LLP (‘LLP’) of a proof of debt lodged by ESS. The issue was whether a tax mitigation structure involving a loan to LLP for purported investment in the Ultra Green Scheme gave rise to a provable debt if the monies ‘loaned’ passed in a circle and no such investment was made.
Facts
Mr Mikki is a photographer (‘the Bankrupt’). Bankruptcy was 2010 when pertinently he had a bank account with £1,500 in it and a car.
The £1,500 was spent, but £3,000 was subsequently paid in. When the account was frozen it again had £1,500 in it. After investigations it was determined that this money derived from post-bankruptcy income and was returned. Those investigations took some time and the Bankrupt demanded penal interest.
1. Introduction
The Insolvency Rules 2016 (“the 2016 Rules”) were published and laid before parliament on 25 October 2016. The rules will come in to force on 6 April 2017. The following note summarises the key features of the rules. For further detail the reader is referred to the following sources:
Facts
Longmeade went into compulsory liquidation. The liquidators were advised that the company had a good claim against BIS. The liquidators has secured third party funding in respect of the claim, which if successful, would double the dividend for creditors. However, 99% by value of the creditors of the company opposed the commencement of an action against BIS. The position of the few remaining creditors was unclear. The liquidators applied to the court for directions as to whether to cause the Longmeade to pursue the claim.
Held
Does section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986 void payments made by the insolvent company’s bank after the presentation of a winding-up petition but pursuant to payment instructions issued by the company before presentation of the petition?