A recent case in the UK (Phones 4U Limited -v- EE Limited) serves as a warning to businesses of the unintended, and potentially costly, consequences of issuing inadequate termination notices to contractual counterparties.
Background
The recent judgment in Phones 4U Ltd (in administration) v EE Ltd [2018] EWHC 49 (Comm) has highlighted the need for care when communicating the reasons for terminating a contract. In this case EE, as a result of failing to identify a repudiatory breach as the grounds for terminating its trading agreement with Phone 4U, was precluded from later pursuing a common law claim for damages.
Background
Since the case of Perar BV v. General Surety and Guarantee in 1994, there has been some confusion and misunderstanding as to the implications of this case and whether insolvency amounts to a breach of contract, or more importantly, if it needs to be, when claiming on a performance bond.
This was recently discussed in the case of Ziggurat (Claremont Place) LLP v HCC International Company Plc just before Christmas.
Background
After a lengthy consultation period, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC) has now been finalised and will come into force on 1 October 2017. This protocol will apply to lenders who are seeking payment of a debt from an individual/ sole trader, as a debtor or guarantor. Now is the time to update your systems and procedures to accommodate the new protocol requirements.
What is required?
Facts
This case arose from an underlying claim by a company called Mploy against Denso, which resulted in an adverse costs order against Mploy.
First published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency
Barristers Stephen Atherton QC and Charlotte Tan of 20 Essex Street review Ronelp Marine Ltd and other companies v STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co Ltd—in which the High Court considers whether, and the circumstances where, it should lift a stay made under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations SI 2006/1030 to allow litigation proceedings to be continued in England by a creditor with an unsecured monetary claim.
On February 3, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied review of a significant decision by the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, that limits a breach of fiduciary duty action brought by creditors against directors of an insolvent corporation under California law. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle, et al., 178 Cal. App. 4th 1020 (2009). California has now joined Delaware in holding that directors do not owe creditors a fiduciary duty, even when the corporation is operating in the so-called “zone of insolvency.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, applying New York law, has held that an inadequate consideration exclusion unambiguously bars coverage for a lawsuit arising out of a debt restructuring transaction. Delta Financial Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Ins. Co. (In re Delta Financial Corp.), 2010 WL 1784054 (3d Cir. May 5, 2010).
In a decision not designated for publication, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has held that an insurer's declaratory judgment complaint for rescission effectuated the rescission of the policy and that the subsequent coverage litigation confirmed the validity of the rescission. In re Sonic Blue Inc., 2010 WL 2034798 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2010).