On 17 December 2015, the Ministry of Justice made a final decision to end the Insolvency Litigation exemption from the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LAPSO) (see

In the recent court decision of Trenfield v HAG Import Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 107, the liquidators recovered unfair preferences from a retention of title creditor who argued it was a secured creditor.

The issues

In May 2018, Mothercare and Carluccio's became the latest in an increasingly long line of high street names to propose Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs) involving significant site closures and rent reductions. On 31 May, 91% of unsecured creditors approved the Carluccio's CVA, and the following day Mothercare's creditors followed suit (although that was not the case with all of its subsidiaries, as discussed below). Next in line according to recent reports are House of Fraser and then Homebase, following the latter's acquisition for £1 by retail restructuring specialists Hilco.

In the recent decision of Heavy Plant Leasing [2018] NSWSC 707, a creditor successfully defended an unfair preference claim by establishing it did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company, who was a subcontractor in the earth moving business.

The most common way of defending a liquidator’s unfair preferences claim is to rely upon section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth); commonly called the ‘good faith defence’.

'I can't be responsible for every single thing that goes on at Sports Direct. I can't be. I can't be!'

Mike Ashley founder and Executive Deputy Chairman Sports Direct appearing before the Business Innovation and Skills Select Committee (June 2016)

Obtaining Decree

After obtaining a Decree (or judgment in England) there are a number of steps that can be taken, if the debtor does not make payment, to recover the outstanding debt. In Scotland this process is known as “diligence”.

Charge for payment (“Charge”)

Commonly, a creditor being sued by a liquidator to refund an alleged unfair preference is owed money by the company in liquidation.

Liquidators argue that under section 553(c)(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) a creditor is not able to set-off the outstanding indebtedness owed by the company to the creditor to reduce any liability of the creditor to refund any unfair preference. Similar arguments are made by liquidators in relation to insolvent trading claims.

A snapshot of the court decisions

Lord Bannatyne has issued his opinion in respect the Note of The Provisional/Interim Liquidator of Equal Exchange Trading Limited [2018] CSOH 35 which gives guidance in respect of the role of the court reporter when fixing the remuneration of a liquidator. The full opinion can be viewed here.

Background

In LRH Services Ltd (in Liquidation) v Raymond Arthur Trew (1) Jason Marcus Brewer (2) and Derek O'Neill (3) [2018] EWHC 600 (Ch), LRH Services Ltd (LRH), acting by its liquidators, brought claims for breach of duty against three former directors. The claims arose from a reorganisation in 2009. LRH did not trade but had two trading subsidiaries (R and E) and it was wholly owned by CSGH, which also had another subsidiary in addition to LRH, CSG. Two of the directors of LRH were substantial shareholders in CSGH.

The reorganisation

Toone v Robbins 2018 [EWHC] 569 (Ch)

The lessons to takeaway

Directors who are also shareholders need to be careful when arranging how to take payments from a company. For tax reasons, dividends can be perceived to be an attractive way to take cash out of a company, but if there are insufficient distributable reserves, such payments are unlawful and can be clawed back.