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.

Where lenders rely on floating charge security to make recoveries from companies in administration, some recent cases have massively increased the potential for administration expenses to swallow up those recoveries. The more well-known cases could just be the start. So, what are the potential risks? What can lenders do in the face of the law as it currently stands? What is going to happen next?

The Nortel decisions

Re Stanford International Bank Limited and others [2009] EWHC 1441 (Ch) provides answers to key questions on the UNCITRAL Model Law on cross-border insolvency. What will courts recognise as a “foreign proceeding”? What types of insolvency practitioners will qualify as “foreign representatives”? Is a company’s “centre of main interests” (COMI) always in the country of its registered office? Linda Ralli considers the practical implications for banks which have lent to foreign companies where they are looking to enforce in England.

Facts

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 

In our legal update on insolvency law issued in July 2010 we commented on the High Court decision of McKay v Toll Logistics (NZ) Limited. 

The English High Court in Bank and Clients Plc v King and Brown considered guarantor liability in circumstances where the guarantors, Messrs King and Brown, alleged representations had been made by the Bank that would relieve them of their liability.

(High Court Auckland, CIV 2010-404-6381, 8 April 2011, Associate Judge Matthews)

In ASB Bank Limited v Hall, the High Court confirmed that a bank does not owe a duty of care to a creditor, director or shareholder of a customer of the bank. 

In the English High Court, the joint administrators of four English companies within the former Lehman Brothers group sought directions from the Court in respect of a proposed settlement. The settlement would put to rest substantial inter-company claims including those at issue in the 'Waterfall III' proceedings.