The Insolvency (Protection of Essential Supplies) Order 2015 which comes in to force on 1 October 2015 significantly changes the options available for suppliers of IT services in relation to their rights against insolvent customers. Any IT supplier caught within the definition of the new legislation will need to beware that they can no longer insist on payment of outstanding invoices as a condition of continued supply to an insolvent business, nor rely on clauses applying automatic price rises upon insolvency of the customer.

Did you know that if a company is listed on the Interim Permission Consumer Credit Register that the directors of the company need the written consent of the FCA before they can file a notice of intention to appoint administrators (“NOI”), and failure to obtain FCA consent renders any subsequent appointment invalid?

Most businesses that; offer goods or services on credit, lend money to consumers, or provide debt solutions and advice to consumers will be carrying out consumer credit activities, and may well have an interim permission and be listed on the Consumer Credit Register.

Following on from our earlier advice on enforcing money judgments, Walker Morris’ banking litigators answer some more frequently asked questions.

Client Question 3

I have heard that I can enforce a money judgment via a third party debt order or an attachment of earnings.  What are these and what are the advantages/disadvantages?

Walker Morris Answer

Directors of companies incorporated in England and Wales must be mindful of their duties and responsibilities to the company as well as the potential personal liability that could arise from breaching those duties and responsibilities in the context of an insolvency.

With the current financial difficulties faced by the oil & gas industry, this issue is especially pertinent to that sector.

Over the past 15 years or so, one of the most commonly recurring themes in my practice has been advising both insolvency practitioners and directors on the prospects of legal proceedings being pursued for breach of director duties and/or wrongful trading. Very often the two claims are put together for the purposes of an actual or threatened claim, and very often sitting behind the scenes as well is a possible investigation and/or claim that one or more directors should be disqualified.

Introduction

Recent weeks have seen a number of decisions concerning liquidations – in this article we explore three of the more interesting ones.

1)  Overseas application of s.213 - Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23

On 22 April 2015 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, which was heard in October last year.  In short it decided that: 1) defendant directors cannot raise illegality as a defence to a claim by a company where the directors themselves acted wrongfully; and 2) a claim in fraudulent trading under Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 213)has extra-territorial effect.

Background

Where a company brings a claim against its directors for losses caused by their wrongdoing, the Supreme Court has confirmed the established position that directors cannot escape the claim by arguing that their actions are attributed to the company itself on the basis that the directors were acting as the agents of the company. 

The Supreme Court recently handed down its judgment in Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23. The Court was unanimous in dismissing the appellants’ case that the claimants’ claims against them should be struck out on the grounds of illegality and on the basis that section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 does not have extra-territorial effect.