This update explains the key changes in cross-border insolvency proceedings if the UK leaves the EU without a deal on 31 October 2019 (or at a later date). Importantly, a no-deal exit will impact how and where such insolvency proceedings can be raised in a post-Brexit future.
A bit of background
While the UK is still an EU Member State, EU Regulations provide a clear framework for conducting cross-border insolvency proceedings. The EU Insolvency Regulations (the 2000 Insolvency Regulation and the 2015 Recast Insolvency Regulation) include provisions which:
The liquidation of Thomas Cook Group last month – and the ensuing cancellation of all flights and repatriation of 140,000+ customers – has prompted fresh scrutiny of the UK’s approach to airline insolvency.
Back in March, we highlighted the launch of a consultation following the UK government’s proposal to introduce a new “secondary preferential” status for HMRC. Further details of the proposal can be found here : HMRC launches consultation on new “secondary preferential” status.
It is a defence to an unfair preference claim to show there were no reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company.
Referred to as the ‘good faith defence’, the creditor has the onus of establishing the defence contained in section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Suspicion of insolvency
The courts have identified the following principles with respect to the good faith defence:
As the insolvency profession in Scotland continues to get to grips with the new corporate insolvency rules, Re Sprout Land Holdings Ltd (in Administration) serves as a timely reminder not to forget the basics when dealing with the appointment of administrators by the directors of a company.
In the recent case of 1st Fleet Pty Ltd (in liquidation), the Court clarified the information disclosure obligations of external administrators in the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPSC) and Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Rules).
There is only a short time period for compliance, and there can be cost consequences for non compliance.
An old friend
In business it is not uncommon for a director of a company to be owed money by that company.
If the commercial relationship breaks down, the director may think it is an option to serve a creditor’s statutory demand on the debtor company.
However, recent court decisions demonstrate that issuing a creditor’s statutory demand is not a sure fire method of obtaining payment where the director is owed the debt personally or is a director of both the creditor and debtor companies.
Cases where statutory demands have been successfully challenged
In a Court of Appeal decision handed down last week the court considered the interplay between the construction adjudication process on the one hand and the insolvency regime on the other.