Whenever there is an apparent monetary debt, common practice is for a claimant to threaten a winding up petition as part of the tactics to get a potential defendant to pay up. Three weeks after a statutory demand letter is sent where an apparent debt for £750 or more exists, a winding up petition can be issued against a company which has not paid (the actual financial wellbeing of the payer is irrelevant as long as they have not paid). Whenever an apparent debt is in dispute this can be a powerful tool to unsettle a defendant.
The impending abolishment of the ancient common law self-help remedy of distress will affect landlords, tenants and insolvency practitioners.
What is Distress?
The ability of landlords to recover arrears of rent without going to Court, by instructing bailiffs to seize, impound and sell certain goods located at the premises and belonging to the tenant. This right will remain until 6 April 2014, but after that date distress will no longer be available and commercial landlords will instead have to rely on Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (“CRAR”).
Following insolvency, creditors and the (now insolvent) company can claim back losses from directors who breached their duties prior to the business breaking down. But it is not just formal directors – it is any individuals who actually control the company and have made themselves ‘shadow directors’ by doing so. In this way, creditors can recoup funds to meet the company’s debts from the individual directors who caused the loss of such funds.
According to The Times (25 October 2013) the British Property Federation has advised landlords to take larger rent deposits to reduce losses caused by the insolvency of a tenant.
The Insolvency Service have recently reported that they are planning to launch proposals to simplify and re-order the existing Insolvency Rules, replacing them with a single set of rules fit for the 21st century. The present rules have been in force since 1986, providing a framework for the Insolvency Act 1986.
Mr. Justice Popplewell recently dismissed the lawsuit filed by liquidators of Madoff Securities International Ltd after a lengthy trial in the High Court through which they were seeking to recover around $50 million. The ruling exonerated the UK defendants including former Bank Medici AG Chairwoman Sonja Kohn and the Directors of Bernard Madoff’s European organisation, including his children Mark and Andrew.
The High Court has confirmed that all rights relating to the control of data belonging to, or being controlled by, a company at the time it entered into liquidation remain vested in the company at and following its liquidation. Liquidators are therefore not personally liable for compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 in respect of this data as they will be viewed as agents acting for the company rather than as 'data controllers'.
A new Statement of Insolvency Practice relating to pre-packaged sales in Administration has been issued and has effect from 1 November 2013.
This provides for earlier notification to creditors of the sale and the justification for it and provides a more extensive list of information that must be included.
The main changes are:
The recent decision of Re Bluecrest Mercantile BV saw the High Court stay proceedings for summary judgment in respect of contract debts to allow the formulation of proposals for a scheme of arrangement - is this likely to be become common practice, or is it a one-off?
The background
The past quarter has seen a spate of cases on range of administration issues. Here we take a canter through some of the more topical ones.
High Court allows appeal on rent as an expense of the administration