Revisiting over 150 years of case law, the High Court has resolved a question on which both the courts and textbooks had given conflicting answers: is a director's liability for payment of a dividend which is unlawful as a result of incorrect accounts fault-based or strict?

The High Court decision in Burnden Holdings clarifies the law on retrospective attacks on the declaration of dividends.

SUMMARY

In this week's update: a distribution was valid despite discrepancies in the accounts justifying the dividend and an examination of vexatious resolutions.

Court considers whether demerger by dividend was valid (part 2)

As the insolvency profession in Scotland continues to get to grips with the new corporate insolvency rules, Re Sprout Land Holdings Ltd (in Administration) serves as a timely reminder not to forget the basics when dealing with the appointment of administrators by the directors of a company.

This is often a question for faced by office-holders of insolvent companies when investigating a company’s affairs, and more of a concern for former directors and shareholders when potentially facing a claim for the return of unlawful dividends or misfeasance.

Introduction

Hildyard J’s recent sanctioning of the scheme of arrangement proposed by PrimaCom Holding GmbH (‘’PrimaCom’’), a German incorporated company whose creditors were domiciled outside of the UK, has reaffirmed the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the English courts in respect of schemes of arrangement and confirmed their status as a useful instrument for foreign companies looking to restructure¹.  

The process

The English law scheme of arrangement (or “scheme”) has re-emerged as a favoured tool of choice for those engaged in complex financial restructurings, in particular where a consensual solution may not be capable of implementation. This bulletin focuses on the key terms of the most high profile recent schemes, including those of WIND Hellas, La Seda, European Directories and Cattles, and identifies current hot topics and market trends.

Background

A recent Supreme Court judgement has confirmed that where an individual, Mr X, acts as director of company A, and company A is the sole director of company B, that will not necessarily make Mr X a “de facto” director of company B.

The Court decided that the mere fact of acting as a director of a corporate director was not enough to render the individual a de-facto director, “something more” would be required, such as the director holding himself out in correspondence as a director of company B.

On 26 July 2010, the Insolvency Service issued proposals for a new type of short-term restructuring moratorium. The moratorium would be available through a court-based process to companies with a viable business and the general support of creditors. The proposed moratorium could have the potential to encourage more companies to view the UK as an attractive jurisdiction for restructuring.

What are the proposals?

The main features are:

Under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006, it is open to a solvent company to enter into an arrangement or compromise with its creditors or members. Over the past 10-15 years such solvent schemes have been implemented in M&A and restructuring transactions and have proved increasingly popular in the insurance market, permitting insurers to crystallise their contingent liabilities.