In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the Matter of Linen Supply of Ireland Limited (the “Company”) and the Companies (Amendment) Act 1990 (as amended), the Court finally clarified the law in relation to a company’s ability to repudiate and/or disclaim leases during the course of an examinership process. Earlier decisions of the High Court, including quite recently the O’Brien’s Sandwich Bar decision, had created uncertainty in this area.
Bell Lines Limited (in Official Liquidation)
LK Shields Solicitors acted for the Secretary of State for the Department of Business Innovation and Skills of the Government of the United Kingdom (the Secretary of State) in a Supreme Court Appeal which raised a succinct technical point in a liquidation.
Ivey v Crockfords (2017 UKSC 67)
Whilst this is not a trust related case, it is an important one which may have an impact on the trust industry going forward as it sees the Supreme Court fundamentally change the test for dishonesty in English law.
It has been common practice in recent years for the English Courts to make administration orders in respect of Jersey companies with English situs assets, based upon letters of request from the Royal Court of Jersey issued pursuant to section 426 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986. However, a recent case in the English High Court has challenged the basis upon which these administration orders have historically been made.
Background
In the matter of the representation of Anglo Irish Asset Finance [2010] JRC087
This is the latest decision of the Royal Court in relation to an application by a UK creditor (a bank) for a letter of request to be issued to the English High Court requesting that an administration order be made in respect of a Jersey company.
There is currently no administration process in Jersey. However, an interesting area of development is the gradual trend towards seeking English administration for Jersey incorporated companies with assets or businesses in England. This offers a possible alternative for a company to winding up on just and equitable grounds where it is desirable to keep the company as a going concern and certain pre-requisites, as a matter of English law, are met (primarily that administration offers a chance of a better realisation for creditors than winding up).
In the latest decision in the long running Pugachevdispute, the High Court considered the effect of five trusts set up by Mr Pugachev, and whether the trusts were shams. Birss J held that he would have been prepared to declare the five trusts shams, but on the true interpretation of the trust documents and considering the powers reserved to Mr Pugachev as protector, all five trusts were, in effect, bare trusts for the benefit of Mr Pugachev.
The English High Court in Re Caledonian Ltd considered whether the business practices of two companies justified the winding up of these companies on a just and equitable basis.
Caledonian Ltd and Caledonian Commodities Ltd (Companies) in concert marketed and sold (among other products) carbon credits, rare earth metals and coloured diamonds (Products) to individual investors.
A High Court finding this month that a liquidator fabricated a key document and failed to account for receipts of over half a million dollars highlights the need for regulation of the insolvency profession.
The case
The liquidator, Geoff Martin Smith, claimed to have sent a notice under section 305 of the Companies Act to the bank holding security over the company in liquidation. The notice required the bank’s election, in default of which its security would be deemed surrendered. The bank said it never received the notice.
This ruling resolved an issue originating from a personal and joint and several guarantee granted by two companies to secure the obligations assumed by a Dutch company under a junior financing agreement. In light of the Dutch company's default on one of its payments under that agreement, the creditor companies sued the debtor, and the court issued a resolution ordering the debtor company to pay the amount claimed.