In a second application heard on the same day, Hildyard J considered an application by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Limited (LBEL) for directions that would enable a surplus to be distributed to the sole member of LBEL while LBEL remained in administration. The proposed scheme had material benefits for both shareholders and creditors. The administrators acknowledged that the orders sought were an indirect means of circumventing the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK), which does not expressly provide for directors to make distributions during an administration.

Randhawa & Anor v Turpin & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1201

In a fascinating (and very readable) judgment, the Court of Appeal has held the appointment of joint administrators made under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") to be invalid because, among other things, the appointment was made following an inquourate board meeting. Readers are encouraged to read the judgment, as the following is merely an overview of the facts and conclusions.

BACKGROUND

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a term could not be implied into a conditional fee agreement between a liquidator and solicitors, and that the solicitors would only be paid out of recoveries made. However, the liquidator was not liable for the fees because of a common understanding between the parties. We cover this, and other issues affecting the insolvency and fraud industry, in our regular update:

Can a company file a notice of intention to appoint an administrator (NOI) if administration is just one of a number of potential options being explored for rescuing the company?

This case raised what is an often-discussed issue amongst insolvency practitioners and lawyers but one which, until now, has not been addressed fully by the courts, namely "does a company (or its director(s)) have to have a "settled intention" to appoint an administrator in order to file a Notice of Intention ("NOI") pursuant to paragraph 27 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("Schedule B1")?".

A recent challenge in the High Court by liquidators to recover assets from a director of an insolvent company has highlighted various points of company law. In particular, the court had to consider directors' authority, share buybacks, and transactions between a company and its directors.

The claimant (D) was the managing director and controlling shareholder of the defendant company (the Company). The Company at first had one other director, D's wife, and later a second (W).

The liquidator challenged three transactions:

Changes to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("Act")

SBEEA 2015 makes a host of supplemental amendments to the Act, the general effect of which is remove references to creditors' meetings and replace them with the alternative decision processes.

As a consequence:

In the first case of its kind, the High Court in England has prevented a shareholder from splitting its shareholding in an attempt to defeat the approval of a scheme of arrangement under section 895 of the Companies Act 2006 (Scheme) by way of manipulation of legislative requirements in relation to Schemes which require approval by a majority in number representing 75% in value of the voting class of shareholders.

HENRY GEORGE DICKINSON (Claimant) v (1) NAL REALISATIONS (STAFFORDSHIRE) LTD (2) KEVIN JOHN HELLARD & GERALD KRASNER (JOINT LIQUIDATORS OF THE FIRST DEFENDANT) (Defendants) & JUDITH YAP DICKINSON (Third Party) & ROBERT WILLIAMSON (Fourth Party) [2017] EWHC 28 (Ch)

Norton Aluminium Limited ("the Company") went into administration in August 2012 when it received a draft judgment in favour of local residents in a claim for nuisance, which resulted in substantial damages being award and likely legal costs.

The facts

Through corporate acquisitions and asset transfers, BAT Industries plc (“BAT”) (a Claimant in the proceedings) became liable to contribute to the clean-up of the sediment of the Lower Fox River in Wisconsin, U.S.A. Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (“AWA”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (“Sequana”) (a Defendant in proceedings), became liable to indemnify BAT for part of any monies paid out. Provision was duly made in AWA’s accounts to reflect a best estimate of the value of such liability.