Removal of requirement for sanction

Previously under section 165 IA 86, liquidators in a voluntary winding up would have to seek sanction of the company (in members’ voluntary liquidation) or of the court or liquidation committee (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) in order to exercise their powers to pay debts, compromise claims etc. SBEEA removes this requirement so that liquidators can exercise those powers freely. This will aid expeditious winding up of companies. Equivalent provisions have also been put into place for trustees in bankruptcy.

On 16 April 2014 we assisted J.K. Buckenham Limited (JKB) in successfully obtaining the court’s leave to convene a meeting of its creditors, a meeting at which JKB will ask such creditors to consider and to vote on a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act 2006 (the Scheme). JKB is promoting the Scheme as part of a wider solution to end its broking obligations, release trapped cash, relinquish its FCA permissions, and ultimately liquidate.

THE SCHEME

Insolvent Defendants

Corporate Insolvency

Dissolution

1. Corporate bodies (limited companies or LLPs) have a separate legal identity that ceases to exist upon dissolution. Dissolution can occur, broadly speaking, in two ways, one is at the end of the process of winding up (whether voluntary or compulsory) and the other is by the process of striking off the Register of Companies 

or limited liability partnerships. The latter occurs either as a result of the company’s

The courts have been busy in recent months considering various schemes of arrangement and reconstructions, including the following 4 unusual and high-profile applications.

In the matter of Co-operative Bank plc

18 December 2013

Companies Court (David Richards J)

[2014] EWHC 4397 (Ch)

The Court of Appeal has given guidance on when the duty of directors to have regard to the interest of creditors arises. This is an important point, as the general statutory duty of a director to promote the success of the company for the benefit of the company's members is expressly subject to the rules on creditors' interests. The court's decision also considers whether a dividend payment can be challenged as a transaction at an undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Facts

Common Starting Points

• Failing UK business.
• Proposed withdrawal from UK market following unsuccessful operations of an international group.
• Proposed solvent restructure involving corporates incorporated in the UK.

Common Questions Raised by Corporations Facing These Difficulties

On 6 February 2019 the Court of Appeal gave its decision dismissing Sequana’s appeal against a decision of the High Court in 2016, that payment of a dividend by a company can be susceptible to challenge under section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86).

Background

In high stakes restructurings, directors can be under significant pressure from different parts of the capital structure to take (or refrain from taking) certain actions. It is critical that the board understands whether it owes duties to members or creditors (or both). For such an important issue, the law has previously been remarkably unclear.

It is little wonder why Andrew Tinkler’s removal from the Stobart Group (and subsequent court case) attracted so much media attention:

Introduction

In light of the decisions made in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2019] EWCA Civ 112 (the Sequana case), consideration may need to be given to the interests of creditors when declaring a dividend. The Court of Appeal in the Sequana case concluded that the payment of an otherwise lawful dividend constituted a transaction defrauding creditors under section 423 of the UK’s Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Background to the Sequana Case