The question of appropriate action in the face of directors’ duties to creditors in the pre-insolvency “twilight zone” is a perennial one. In particular, the question of preservation of asset value (given all the hoo- ha about pre-packs), and whether to transfer out assets before insolvency has an impact on value, is fraught with difficulty. Two recent cases offer contrasting versions of how to go about it.

Background – Re French UK plc

We all know that statutory demand can be issued for undisputed debts in excess of £750, and if not satisfied for 21 days, the stat demand is prima facie evidence of insolvency. What happens where there are multiple dents of less than £750 each however? Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Ltd [2015] EWHC 1177 (Ch) provides an insight.

The background

A number of headlines following a recent high-profile professional negligence case suggest that there is no duty on a purchaser’s conveyancer to check a seller’s solvency. It is, of course, part of the normal pre-contract searches and enquiries to check on the solvency of the seller, and in the majority of cases, the property solicitor will become aware of the seller’s bankruptcy, as a notice or restriction on the title will show up on the official search of the registered title.  

Solvent

In Mark Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Limited, the High Court has held that statutory demands will not necessarily be set aside if the undisputed debt is less than £750, where there other debts which would take the cumulative total over this limit.

Facts

Mr Howell obtained finance from Lerwick in 2010 to develop a property and paid £2,750 to Lerwick to obtain a valuation. Mr Howell claimed that the valuation provided was sub-standard, and as a result there were delays in the development and its subsequent sale.

The Tribunal has upheld HMRC's decision that a company (Danesmoor Ltd) should not be entitled to recover input VAT incurred on professional fees for a corporate restructuring. HMRC had not allowed the recovery of the input VAT on the grounds that the services were not provided to the company. The appellant argued that the advisors had been engaged and paid for by the company directly in connection with the restructuring and as such the input VAT should be recoverable.

Recent weeks have seen a number of decisions concerning liquidations – in this article we explore three of the more interesting ones.

1)  Overseas application of s.213 - Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23

The past three months have seen the publication of a spate of forthcoming regulatory and legislative changes. In this bulletin we investigate some of the more significant developments.

Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 2015 – threshold for bankruptcy petitions

This order, which comes into effect on 1 October 2015, makes amendments to section 267(4) IA 1986, increasing the threshold for bankruptcy petitions to £5,000 (currently £750).

The Supreme Court has confirmed in Jetivia v Bilta that where a company brings a claim against its directors for losses caused by their wrongdoing, the directors cannot escape the claim by arguing that their actions are attributed to the company itself.

The Supreme Court also held that s.213 of the Insolvency Act, (which permits the Court to take action against those who  have conducted the business of a company in order to defraud creditors) was not jurisdictionally confined and applied to people and companies resident outside the UK.

As reported in our briefing last week, the European Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in the case of Union of Shop, Distributive & Allied Workers (USDAW) and another v WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation) and others (C–80/14) in relation to long running claims brought by former employees of national retailers Woolworths and Ethel Austin, which arose out of the administration and closure of all of their retail stores. The ECJ had to consider the meaning of “establishment” in the legislation, which triggers an obligation to undertake collective consultation when an employe

Employees who transfer to a new employer from a business that is under insolvency proceedings may be able to recover unpaid wages and other debts from the Secretary of State.

However, BIS v Dobrucki has confirmed that the Secretary of State will only pick up the liabilities of the old employer (the transferor).  It will not be responsible for liabilities that are incurred after the transfer has taken place; that is, any liability of the new employer (the transferee).

The background