The Facts
This was an appeal by liquidators to the Court of Appeal from a decision refusing to grant an order that payments made to the respondent directors totalling nearly £450,000 were preferences.
By the time of the appeal, it was accepted that the payments were made within the relevant time and with the requisite intention to prefer.
The High Court has recently demonstrated its right to exercise discretion as to whether an administration order should be made in relation to a company. In Rowntree Ventures v Oak Property Partners Limited, even though the companies were unable to pay their debts and where the statutory purpose of administration was likely to be achieved, the Court exercised its commercial judgment in determining that it was premature to make an administration order.
Background
Lovers of Shakespeare will no doubt recognise the aforesaid phrase. As this is Shakespeare’s 400th birthday year, I thought it apt to borrow one of his most famous phrases.
The use of Shakespeare in a legal article may appear to many readers misplaced. However, the expression does, in my view, capture a serious dilemma facing creditors when trying to invoke what appears to be a cost-effective and quick way of recovering money.
In the recent case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others [2016] EWHC 1686, the High Court has held for the first time that a dividend can be challenged as a transaction entered into at an undervalue within the meaning of section 423(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).
The Facts
The facts of the case are long and complex but for present purposes the pertinent facts are as follows.
Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (now Windward Prospects Limited) (“AWA”) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (“SSA”).
Agriculture is a long-term business and most people within the sector are proud of its reputation for straight talking and fair dealing. Debt issues can arise at any stage, but there are particular cyclical problems at the moment which mean that there is more debt-chasing activity, as cashflow pressures intensify.
Vanquish Properties (UK) Ltd Partnership v Brook Street (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 1508 (Ch)
Vanquish, a developer, was a Limited Partnership under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 with one General Partner, liable for all obligations of the business, and four Limited Partners.
It was granted an overriding lease by the City Corporation in the name of the Limited Partnership, “acting by” its General Partner. There was no mention of the four Limited Partners.
Introduction
The government has commenced a consultation exercise on its proposals to introduce procedures for further education and sixth-form colleges which become insolvent.
The proposed regime would include a Special Administration Regime, aimed at protecting learners from disruption to their courses, helping the rehabilitation of a college where this is possible or providing an orderly wind-up procedure.
What can happen to you if your pre-payment is lost is demonstrated by the recent administration of budget tour operator Lowcostholidays. The company’s administration left customers already abroad at risk of being asked by hotel owners to settle their bills before leaving and meant that other customers lost deposits paid for holidays which will now, sadly, not take place.
Most trading contracts contain specific terms setting out the consequences of a counterparty insolvency or other default. This article explores whether, and in what circumstances, it may be sensible to invoke rights under such clauses or whether it can be better to adopt a more “wait and see” attitude. We also look at drafting options prior to finalising contract terms.
When considering how to respond to a counterparty event of default (EOD), relevant considerations will include potential consequences: