The High Court has found that two directors and one former director of a company were in breach of their duties by causing the company to implement a reorganisation and a capital reduction when they were aware there was a risk it would lose its source of income.
In addition, the statutory statement of solvency supporting the capital reduction was invalid because the director had not formed the opinion set out in it. As a result, the capital reduction and a subsequent dividend were unlawful, and the directors were liable to repay the dividend.
What happened?
Carillion, the UK’s second largest construction company, entered compulsory liquidation on 15 January 2018, with estimated debts of £1.5bn and a pension deficient of c£800m, following three profit warnings in 2017. The company employs 20,000 people in the UK and 43,000 people worldwide. It is thought that some 30,000 companies may be affected by the liquidation.
The High Court has held that two director-shareholders of a company who were unsuccessfully prosecuted for fraud could not claim back the drop in the value of their shares when the company’s business failed.
What happened?
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has published a consultation on insolvency and corporate governance.
The consultation is aimed primarily at improving corporate governance in firms that are in or approaching insolvency. However, it also puts forward proposals for improving the wider framework of corporate governance.
The key proposals from the consultation are set out below.
In Bespark Technologies Engineering Ltd v JV Fitness Ltd the High Court recently took the opportunity to remind liquidators of their duty to give full and frank disclosure when making an ex parte (without notice) application to the court.(1) A failure to do so could have serious consequences, including a refusal to approve the appointment of a liquidator or an order for his or her removal. The duty to be full and frank applies to all ex parte applications, so there are general lessons to be learned.
ADVISORY | DISPUTES | TRANSACTIONS Restructuring and insolvency roundup January 2018 In this roundup, we consider four cases with implications for all those involved in the restructuring and insolvency sector. This edition includes an article on crowdfunding, a sector which continues to be of interest to practitioners giving the changing regulatory landscape and the risk to investors. Other cases include two Court of Appeal decisions and cover privilege in bankruptcy, the adequacy of ATE policies, and the requirement for boards to be quorate when directors appoint administrators.
A recent application made by the insolvency practitioner of Agrokor, a major Croatian conglomerate, resulted in recognition in England of a stay of civil proceedings against the group. The purpose of the application was to halt any proceedings in relation to Agrokor's securities and debt obligations containing English law and jurisdiction provisions, pending the restructuring in the Croatian insolvency proceedings of the group's affairs.
The decision in Mezhprom v Pugachev, which was handed down on 11 October 2017, has potentially wide-ranging ramifications for trustees and the private client industry more generally.
Although the judgment is a first instance decision and may be appealed, the approach taken by the judge in this case to the analysis of powers conferred on protectors is an important development.
In UBS AG v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GmbH(1) the Court of Appeal heard an appeal relating to whether complex, loss-making financial transactions were enforceable against the respondent (KWL) in circumstances where they had been entered into against the backdrop of a corrupt relationship between the appellant counterparty (UBS) and the respondent's agent (Value Partners).