Section 239(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “1986 Act”) limits the jurisdiction to reverse a preference to situations where “the company which gave the preference was influenced in deciding to give it by a desire to produce” the prohibited result. This involves a subjective enquiry which turns on the relevant actor’s state of mind.

To secure an order for the #winding-up of a Quasi-Partnership company on the Just& Equitable ground, is it necessary only to show that mutual trust and confidence between the shareholders/quasi-partners has broken down? Hardwicke investigates the recent case of Badyal v Badyal & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1644

Background

2018 was seen by many as the ‘year of the CVA’ and the year of the so -called ‘Retail CVA’ in particular. Such CVAs have been used in an attempt by companies operating in the retail and casual dining sector with burdensome leases to reduce the cost of their premises whilst continuing to trade.

2019 was widely expected to be the year in which there was a challenge by a landlord under s.6 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘the Act’) to the use of CVAs to force a rent reduction, without comparable cuts to other creditors and so it has proved.

The recent case of Sell Your Car With Us Ltd v Anil Sareen will be of interest to practitioners in Corporate Insolvency as it provides a useful reminder that there is no strict rule that the winding up procedure is inapt for mere debt collection.

The Facts:

The creditor (“AS”) had engaged the debtor company (“SYC”) to sell his Maserati Levante sports car and on completion of the sale to deposit the proceeds in his bank account. Communications were agreed to be conducted by email.

Judgment of Kerr J. in Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council v Punj Lloyd Limited [2018] EWHC 3776

Introduction

The UNCITRAL Model Law on the Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency Related Judgments (‘the New Model Law’) is intended to fill the gaps that currently exist in cross-border conventions as they apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments in insolvency proceedings.

Original news

Goldcrest Distribution Limited v McCole and others [2016] EWHC 1571 (Ch)

What is the background to this case?

The claimant lender, C, sought possession of residential property owned jointly by D1 and his partner D2 (the property) pursuant to a purported legal charge entered into by both the D1 and D2 (the charge). The charge secured D1’s liability to C arising under a guarantee whereby D1 had guaranteed the indebtedness of his company, "Ascot" to C.

A version of this article was first published in The Law Society Gazette and Prime Resi.

Facts 

The respondents applied to set aside an order permitting the liquidators to serve the ‘Main Application’ on the respondents out of the jurisdiction (‘Set Aside Application’). Grounds of the application were: (i) the liquidators could not establish a serious issue to be tried/ reasonable prospect of success on the Main Application; and (ii) the initial without notice application had been procured by misrepresentation and/or material non-disclosure.

Facts

Solicitors, Stevensdrake, sought payment of costs from insolvency practitioner, Hunt. As liquidator, Hunt took action against two former administrators of an estate, and retained Stevensdrake for assistance. Early in their relationship, the parties agreed that Hunt would not be liable if there were no recoveries, and that the solicitors would be paid when there was a recovery from any source. The parties later entered a conditional fee agreement (CFA) with an express term stipulating that Hunt would be personally liable for unpaid fees.