When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”

When a company is in financial distress, its directors will face difficult choices. Should they trade on to trade out of the company's financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they delay filing and the company goes into administration or liquidation, will the directors be at risk from a wrongful trading claim by the subsequently appointed liquidator? Once in liquidation, will they be held to have separately breached their duties as directors and face a misfeasance claim? If they file precipitously, will creditors complain they did not do enough to save the business?

The opening of safeguard or reorganisation proceedings does not automatically terminate a current agreement notwithstanding any contractual clause providing for termination.

Termination by a lessor

The liquidator of UKCloud Ltd (the Company) applied to the court for directions as to whether a debenture granted by the Company created a fixed or floating charge over certain internet protocol (IP) addresses. The lender argued that it had a fixed charge.

Fixed or floating?

Background

The administrators of Toogood International Transport and Agricultural Services Ltd (in administration) issued an application seeking an extension of the administration. Their application also asked the court whether consent to a previous administration extension should have been obtained from a secured creditor which had been paid in full before the extension process.

Once a creditor, always a creditor?

The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has clarified the conditions under which incongruent collateral, granted when an insolvency is imminent, can be contested. The burden of proof is placed on the defendant creditor to demonstrate that the action was part of a serious restructuring attempt.

Background

In a recent judgment, the Polish Supreme Court resolved an important question concerning the rights of a creditor to bring legal proceedings after the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings by a debtor.

Legal issue

The Supreme Court considered whether the declaration of a debtor's bankruptcy results in the loss of a creditor's standing to bring a lawsuit to declare a debtor’s attempt to dissipate its assets ineffective (actio pauliana).

What is actio pauliana?

The Austrian Supreme Court recently considered whether the knowledge of a debtor may be attributed to a third party in an avoidance action.

Background

In a recent decision, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) further outlined the requirements for the avoidance of a transaction under insolvency law on the grounds of wilful disadvantage to creditors pursuant to section 133 of the German Insolvency Code (InsO).

Background

Background

Crabb was the sole director of Courtside Recycling Ltd (Courtside). From 2014 to 2018, Crabb instructed Courtside's accountants to file VAT returns but only provided bank statements for one of the Company's three bank accounts. As a result, the VAT assessments significantly understated Courtside's true VAT liabilities for this period.

Following its own investigation and using transaction information gathered from Courtside's other bank accounts, HMRC issued amended VAT assessments. Courtside was unable to pay its VAT liabilities.