A possible alternative to the freezing injunction.

A judgment has recently provided helpful guidance on a creative form of injunction. The “notification order” compels a defendant to give notice to the claimant before disposing or dealing with its assets. This notification order is less onerous than a freezing injunction, and although it usually accompanies the freezing injunction, in this case, the order was issued as standalone relief. The notification would alert the claimant to apply for a freezing injunction prior to dissipation of any assets.

A proposed shakeup of the UK’s corporate insolvency regime will impose a three month freeze on legal action against stressed businesses who are investigating rescue options.  In addition to this moratorium, measures have been suggested to help businesses to continue trading through the restructuring process.  The intention is that this will prevent struggling companies being held to ransom by key suppliers, and will also assist in developing flexible restructuring plans.  The proposal would make rescue schemes binding, even on secured creditors.

The facts

Summary: Customers of a company in administration were entitled, as against a factor, to exercise equitable set-off in respect of entitlements to rebates that had arisen between the customers and the company notwithstanding the assignment of the customer’s debts to the factor.

Bibby Factors Northwest Ltd v HFD Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1908 (17 December 2015)

Background

On 25 May, the Insolvency Service published a consultation paper on options for reform of the UK's corporate insolvency regime.

(1) PST ENERGY 7 SHIPPING LLC; (2) PRODUCT SHIPPING & TRADING S.A. V. (1) O.W. BUNKER MALTA LTD; (2) ING BANK N.V. [2016] EWSC 23 (‘RES COGITANS’)

Judgment of the Supreme Court, 11 May 2016

Introduction

In the first 3 months of this year, company insolvencies increased for the first time since 2014. In April, UK manufacturing activity contracted for the first time in 3 years.1 A range of explanations has been offered including

weaker domestic demand, low oil prices hitting production and uncertainty created by the EU referendum. It the circumstances, it seems timely to look at one of the remedies that can be available to manufacturers and suppliers in the event of a customer failing to pay for goods.

Directors can be held liable to contribute to company assets if they knew or ought to have known at a point before the commencement of administration or insolvency that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid this process. This is known as wrongful trading (section 214 of the Insolvency Act).

There have been a number of recent instances, including this year, of quoted companies calling general meetings to seek shareholder approval to remedy dividends that were paid unlawfully. Invariably these have been for non-compliance with a statutory formality rather than because the company did not have sufficient distributable profits to make the dividend.

Why are companies prepared to suffer the embarrassment and expense of going to their shareholders to fix the breach rather than simply doing nothing?

Julian Kenny QC appeared for the Appellants in the Supreme Court who handed down judgment 11 May, a much anticipated ruling by shipowners and subsidiary companies affected by the OW Bunker collapse.

The judgment affirms the rulings of the Court of Appeal and of first instance Judge, Males J, that a contract for the supply of bunkers that a shipowner had entered into with a subsidiary of the now insolvent OW Bunker company was not one to which the Sale of Goods Act 1979 applies.