The Government’s final report on how to deal with insolvent airlines has been criticised by major UK carriers for its headline-grabbing suggestion of a new Flight Protection Scheme which would see a levy of about 50p put on customer fares to cover the costs of any future repatriation exercise. But the implications of the report are potentially far more significant and wide-ranging for all stakeholders.
On closer analysis, the report could see changes in:
The lender's dilemma
Lenders who take security over shares in an English company have to decide whether to take either:
- a legal mortgage by becoming registered owner of the shares
- an equitable mortgage or charge with the chargor remaining the registered owner.
A legal mortgage gives the lender the right to vote subject to the terms of the mortgage document and prevents the chargor from disposing of legal title to the shares to a third party, as the lender is the registered owner of the shares.
The development of new powertrain technology; challenges within established markets, such as diesel emissions issues; and falls in automotive production – production in the United Kingdom has fallen during the last 12 consecutive months – have had a significant impact on the automotive and mobility industry.
In Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB v Conway & another [2019] UKPC 36, the Privy Council upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands that the appellant bank, SEB, was required to repay redemption payments held to be preferences notwithstanding that it had received the funds in the capacity of nominee, and had already distributed the funds to the beneficiaries without any ability to recover them.
Facts
In this week's update: directors did not need to consider the rights of creditors when declaring a dividend as the company was not insolvent, the Law Commission is seeking views on the law of intermediated securities, polling information can be inside information and a couple of other items.
Court considers whether demerger by dividend was valid (part 4)
On 11 July 2019, HMRC published a policy paper discussing measures which are aimed at those taxpayers who “unfairly seek to reduce their tax bill by misusing the insolvency of companies”. This will be achieved by making directors and other persons connected to those companies jointly and severally liable for the avoidance, evasion or “phoenixism” debts of the corporate entity.
An explanatory note and draft legislation set out the conditions that must be satisfied in order to enable an authorised HMRC officer to issue a “joint liability notice” to an individual.
The transition from a family business to a family office can be treacherous. In a family business, the family is still involved in the day-to-day operations of the business and is literally “watching the store.” In a family office, the day-to-day operation of the family business and other financial investments and endeavors of the family may be delegated to experts outside of the family. This should create an enhanced level of professionalism and provide institutional safeguards and protections for the family, but can backfire.
The High Court decision in Burnden Holdings clarifies the law on retrospective attacks on the declaration of dividends.
SUMMARY
When can an insolvency practitioner pursue directors for declaring unlawful dividends?
Does an insolvency practitioner need to demonstrate that the directors knew, or ought to have known, that the dividend was paid unlawfully, or is it a strict liability issue?
Can director/shareholders rely on professionally prepared accounts to avoid liability?
In this week's update: directors implementing a management buy-out did not owe fiduciary duties to the other shareholders and a distribution was valid despite the relevant accounts not being in the usual format.
Directors did not owe fiduciary duty to shareholders
The High Court has held that the directors of a company did not owe a fiduciary duty to the company’s shareholders when implementing a management buy-out (MBO).
What happened?