A company’s former administrators sought an order under the Insolvency Act 1986 that their remuneration and expenses should be payable out of a sum owed to the company from National Westminster Bank Plc (Natwest). The company entered into interest rate swaps with Natwest. After the swaps terminated, the company granted a fixed charge and debenture over its assets to a third party. Administrators were appointed and recorded costs of over £164,000 before the company was dissolved.

Kandola v Mirza Solicitors LLP [2015] EWHC 460 (Ch)

A recent decision of HHJ Cooke in the Chancery Division of the High Court in Kandola v Mirza Solicitors LLP [2015] EWHC 460 (Ch) has provided some useful guidance on solicitors' duties to advise as to the risk of insolvency of the vendor when acting for purchasers in property transactions where deposits are held as agents for the vendor. It also provides guidance on solicitors' duties generally when advising on risks in transactions.

The Facts

On December 21, 2011, in the High Court of England & Wales, Norris J handed down his judgment in Re Virtualpurple Professional Services Ltd [2011] EWHC 3487 (Ch), and in doing so he has become the first judge to cast real doubt on the decision of the Chancellor in Minmar (929) Limited v. Khalatschi [2011] EWHC 1159 (Ch). This is a welcome development and should at least begin the process of finally determining the correct formalities for an out-of-court appointment by directors where there is no qualifying floating charge holder.

In our December 2010 and April 2011 insolvency updates, we reported on the UK High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail. The issue before both Courts was whether Eurosail was insolvent by virtue of being unable to pay its debts under the balance sheet limb of the solvency test in section 123 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision that Eurosail was solvent, noting that it had not reached the "point of no return".

In the English High Court case of Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Football League Ltd (Football Association Premier League Ltd intervening) [2012] EWHC 1372 (Ch);  [2012] WLR (D) 163, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) brought a general challenge to the "football creditors rule".

In Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 090 Ch, the English High Court was asked to decide whether a bankrupt’s entitlement to a pension, which he had not yet elected to receive, should be subject to an order for income payment.

The recent English decision in the Australian liquidation, New Cap Reinsurance Corpn Ltd (in liquidation) and another v Grant and others (available here), has further opened up the possibility for New Zealand insolvency proceedings to be recognised and enforced in the United Kingdom. 

In Grant v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, the Court of Appeal took little time to uphold a High Court decision that a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) under Part 15A of the Companies Act 1993 was void.

At the creditors meeting, the DOCA had been approved by the majority of creditors in number. Nevertheless, this did not constitute 75% of creditors in value. Mr Grant, as chair of a creditors' meeting, purported to exercise a casting vote in favour of the DOCA in order for it to be approved. 

Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Ltd v Fletcher [2011] FACFC 89 concerned the powers of liquidators in Australia.  In 2009, joint liquidators were appointed to Octaviar Limited (Octaviar) and Octaviar Administration (Funder).  Fortress claimed to be a secured creditor of Octaviar under a charge, and was owed approximately $71 million.  The liquidators arranged for Octaviar and the Funder to enter into funding agreements that provided for the Funder to fund an investigation into the actions of Fortress and to commence litigation against Fortress.

The High Court in England was asked to consider sanctioning a scheme of arrangement between Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (LBIE) and certain of its creditors pursuant to Part 26 Companies Act 2006 (the equivalent of Part 15 Companies Act 1993).  This case was one of a number of proceedings involving the Lehman Brothers administration, many of which cases have reached the Supreme Court (see our earlier reports on