In accordance with the resolution adopted by the seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court dated 20 November 2019, case file no. III CZP 3/19, it is not admissible to stipulate liquidated damages in the case of rescinding an agreement due to the failure to perform an obligation of a pecuniary nature.

Following an expedited trial, the High Court has rejected an application brought by a group of landlords known as the Combined Property Control Group (“CPC”) to challenge the company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) proposed by Debenhams Retail Limited (“Debenhams”).

CPC challenged the CVA on five grounds. The judge in the case, Mr Justice Norris, held that four of the five grounds failed and directed certain “Forfeiture Restraint Provisions” be removed from the CVA as a result of the fifth.

A recent TCC decision has concluded that the contractor insolvency provisions of the JCT form continue to apply after a termination by the contractor for repudiation. This conclusion may give rise to surprising results and potentially allow an employer to claim from the contractor additional amounts incurred in completing the works with a third party even after termination for the employer’s own default and/or repudiation.

Administrators can be validly appointed to a company by the holder of a floating charge which was given by the company in breach of a negative pledge in favour of an existing secured creditor and even if, both at the time of the purported creation of that floating charge and on the day of the purported appointment of administrators, the company had no assets which were the subject of the floating charge.

Introduction:

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that a provision of German law falls within the scope of Article 4 of the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings, thereby paving the way for a German court to require a director of an English incorporated company to make payments under German law where the company has been placed into insolvency proceedings in Germany. 

On 9 April the Polish Parliament adopted a bill implementing the so-called “second chance” policy for businesses, pursued at the EU level.

The Act introduces a clear separation between restructuring proceedings and bankruptcy proceedings. As the latter are commonly perceived as stigmatising, the initiation of bankruptcy can hinder successful restructuring. The new Act introduces four new types of restructuring proceedings, i.e.:

Parties wishing to resist the enforcement of an adjudication decision on the grounds of insolvency usually need to show that the claiming party will not be in a position to repay the amount of the decision if required to do so in later court or arbitration proceedings. Two recent cases in the TCC have, however, shown that different considerations can apply in the less typical circumstances of a members’ voluntary liquidation and a creditors voluntary arrangement.

Maguire & Co v Mar City Developments

Shareholders who fail to intervene to stem the losses in a company they control may be held personally liable for the company’s debts if it is subsequently liquidated, according to the Supreme Court.

Under Hungarian law, a shareholder’s liability (in a limited liability company) is usually limited to their capital contribution. The corporate ‘veil’ can only be pierced (making the shareholder personally liable for the company’s debts) in special circumstances.

In the last week of January, the Czech Government passed an amendment to the Insolvency Act, which was prepared by the Ministry of Justice. The aim of the amendment is to respond to the growing widespread practice of the filing of unjustified insolvency petitions by creditors. The amendment intends to allow courts to reject such petitions.

Hurstwood Properties (A) Ltd and others (Respondents) v Rossendale Borough Council and another (Appellants)

The Supreme Court has delivered its keenly anticipated judgment in a case concerning the validity of two business rates mitigation schemes. The schemes under scrutiny involved property owners letting unoccupied properties to special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”) which benefitted from a business rates exemption and therefore allowed both the property owners and the SPVs to avoid liability for business rates.