Recently the Victorian Court of Appeal upheld a decision to deny liquidators approval of a proposed settlement in McDermott and Potts as liquidators of Lonnex Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2019] VSCA 23. The creditors had been opposed to the settlement.
Background
Commonly, a creditor being sued by a liquidator to refund an alleged unfair preference is owed money by the company in liquidation.
Liquidators argue that under section 553(c)(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) a creditor is not able to set-off the outstanding indebtedness owed by the company to the creditor to reduce any liability of the creditor to refund any unfair preference. Similar arguments are made by liquidators in relation to insolvent trading claims.
A snapshot of the court decisions
In a recent virtual speech, Chair of the FCA, Charles Randell observed that some of the debt businesses have incurred in the Covid-19 crisis will become unaffordable and that lenders and regulators will need to tackle this overhang of debt quickly and fairly to prevent it becoming a drag on the economy. With an eye to the past, Mr Randall noted that the industry could not repeat the events of the 2008 crisis where the treatment of some SME customers caused serious damage to the trust in financial services institutions and in some cases to customers themselves.
In this week’s update: The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 comes into force, the Government extends company and LLP filing deadlines, new guidance on public health emergency takeover interventions, FCA censure of accompany for historic market abuse and a few other items.
On 26 June the long-awaited Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 came into force and introduced emergency measures to provide protection to directors of companies which continue to trade notwithstanding the threat of insolvency, and to prevent, where possible, companies entering into insolvency due to COVID-19.
In this week’s update: the test for an LLP member to bring a derivative claim, updated guidance on company meetings, the court sanctions a takeover despite not all beneficial owners being able to vote on the scheme and a few other items.
Covid-19 is affecting the way people conduct their business, retain their staff, engage with clients, comply with regulations and the list goes on. Read our thoughts on these issues and many others on our dedicated Covid-19 page.
In his judgment handed down on 7 May 2020 in the case of Gregory v ARG (Mansfield) Ltd [2020] EWHC 1133 (Ch), HH Judge Davis-White QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, commented (on an obiter basis) that where a company regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) seeks to enter administration, section 362A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA 2000”) and paragraph 29 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Insolvency Act”), require that writ
In the third (and final) of our blog series on recent CVA cases, in Rhino Enterprises Properties Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2370 (Ch), the High Court gave permission for misfeasance proceedings to be brought against two former joint administrators. This was despite an approved Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”) containing a clause releasing the joint administrators from liability.
On 3 December 2020, the UK Government (HM Treasury) issued a consultation paper (the Consultation) setting out a proposal to implement a new “special administration regime” (the SAR) which it is proposed would apply to any insolvency of an authorised payment institution (a PI) or electronic money institution (an EMI).
Syedur Rahman of Rahman Ravelli examines a case that ruled on whether a Warning Notice can be issued while there is a liquidation stay on action and proceedings.
As the saga continues following the collapse of the facilities management and construction services group Carillion, so does the legal fall-out regarding the company and its regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).