Companies in distress often undertake a sales of assets to alleviate cash flow or debt repayment issues when other lines of credit or source of funds have been exhausted. Such decisions are not taken lightly, especially as the disposal of assets is likely to detrimentally impact the underlying business or forecasts. Ultimately creditors’ demands and survival instincts will result in action being taken however it is often too late and to the detriment of the business.

Introduction

It is common for companies in distress to undertake a sales process of assets to alleviate cash flow or debt repayment issues. Often this course of action is the last resort after all other lines of credit have been exhausted or creditors have stopped providing extended terms of trade. Companies should not take such decisions lightly, especially if the sale will impact the underlying business or forecasts. However, ultimately creditors’ demands and survival instincts result in action being taken (often too late and to the detriment of the company).

In two months' time the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 will come into force (with effect from 6 April 2017). This date has been long in the making the first draft of the new rules was published in September 2013.

The new rules are not intended to change the law. Their main aim is to consolidate provisions in order to reduce repetition, ensure that there is a more logical structure and modernise and simplify the language (including gender neutral drafting).

This briefing highlights a few of the key changes.

Het is pandhouders op grond van artikel 3:246 lid 1 Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW) toegestaan om een pandrecht op vorderingen uit te winnen door middel van het opeisen van de vordering. Deze bevoegdheid omvat tevens het recht om zekerheidsrechten uit te winnen die aan de verpande vordering zijn verbonden. Dit is bevestigd in een arrest van de Hoge Raad van 18 december 2015 (ABN AMRO / Marell).

Feiten

Pursuant to Article 3:246 paragraph 1 of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) pledgees have the power to enforce their right of pledge on receivables by claiming (direct) payment of the receivable. This power also includes the right to enforce rights of pledge that in their turn have been granted as security for the repayment of the pledged receivable. The Supreme Court confirmed this in its judgement of 18 December 2015 (ABN AMRO / Marell).

Keeping children safe in education – revised statutory guidance

On 5 September 2016, the Department for Education’s revised guidance, ‘Keeping children safe in education’, came into force. The document is the Government’s statutory guidance which all schools, academies and colleges must have regard to when carrying out their duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

Two recent cases provide a timely reminder of the opportunities offered by creditor-funded litigation as a mechanism for bringing funds into what would otherwise be unfunded administrations. Both cases are examples of flexible and “light touch” exercises of judicial discretion which duly recognise the constraints and complex commercial considerations invariably encountered by liquidators in unfunded liquidations.

Approval of litigation funding agreements

Can liquidators disclose legal advice to creditors without waiving privilege? Common interest privilege may assist.

Common interest privilege

Legal professional privilege protects communications between a lawyer and client created for the dominant purpose of seeking or providing legal advice or for current or anticipated litigation.

If advice is disclosed to third parties, there may be a waiver of that privilege.

Insolvency practitioners can benefit from registration errors on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR).

Stay alert to any mistakes made by secured parties, as unregistered or invalidly registered interests could vest in the company.

Common errors include:

Dixon v Radley House Partnership (A Firm) [2016] EWHC 2511 (TCC)

The claimant (D) brought negligence proceedings against the defendant (R) a firm of architects, for refurbishment works.

In the draft claim form, D had referred to a loss of £35,894.00 allegedly caused by negligent misrepresentation on the part of R, who had been instructed on 27 October 2007.

The draft claim form and the fee were prepared up to a value of £50,000.00 and were received by the court on 25 October 2013, less than six years after the cause of action arose.