Introduction

With the commencement of the Companies Accounting Act 2017 (“2017 Act”) on 9 June 2017, the priority of charges in liquidations has been dramatically altered.

Judicial Development

This case raised the issue of when a company in financial distress (or the directors of that company) should issue a Notice of Intention to Appoint an Administrator (“NOITA”) which affords a moratorium under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”).

The recent judgment in MB Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Limited (in liquidation) –v- Allied Irish Bank Plc [2016] has clarified what constitutes “notice” of the liquidation of a company for creditors and banks alike.

You will have previously seen a landlord's consent is usually required to enable a pharmacist to assign or sell their lease to a third party.

It is usual for the landlord's consent to be specified not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

On a lease assignment a landlord will want to ensure that the tenant is of sufficient financial strength to be able to comply with the lease covenants (including payment of the rent).

On 30 September 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) published its finding that two companies involved in the online retail of licensed sport and entertainment posters and frames had breached the Competition Act 1998 (“CA98”) by entering into agreements (or, at least, ‘concerted practices’) to artificially inflate the prices charged for certain products. A formal charge was accepted by the main protagonist, Trod Limited (in administration) (“Trod”) and fines imposed, which became payable by Trod’s administrators as of 13 October 2016.

Horton v Henry: Pensions clarified

We previously discussed the uncertainty surrounding the treatment of pensions in a bankruptcy which arose from two conflicting high court decisions: Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch).

In Hinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH) (where this firm successfully represented the trustee in bankruptcy, Lloyd Hinton of Insolve Plus Limited), the court commented that the approach in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) was “plainly correct”.

We recently published an article entitled“Good news for financial institutions seeking to challenge Protective Certificates” which outlined the positive steps taken the High Court to prevent a Debtor from receiving the full benefit of a protective certificate (“PC”) where it would cause irreparable loss to a lending institution.

Bailey v Angove’s Pty Ltd [2016] UKSC Civ 47

SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in this case had to consider whether an agent’s authority to accept payments had been ended by the principal’s termination of the agency agreement or if the agent’s authority was irrevocable in spite of the termination notice and permitted the agent to receive remaining payments due from customers for goods supplied during the term of the agreement.

BACKGROUND

The High Court recently considered Protective Certificates (PC) in the context of Personal Insolvency Arrangements (PIA) in the recent case of Clones Credit Union –v- McManus. A Protective Certificate can be obtained by debtors to prevent enforcement action threatened by creditors. The PC allows such protection for a period of 70 days to facilitate an informal arrangement with creditors.

FACTS:

InHinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH), Jason Freedman and Aziz Abdul successfully secured an Income Payments Order (“IPO”) on behalf of the Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The court also provided useful guidance on the correct position where a bankrupt has made an election to draw down from his private pension but not given specific instructions as to application of the funds.

LEGAL BACKGROUND: