A recent judgment of the High Court will serve to remind minority, overseas creditors of any company having a substantial connection with England that their debtor’s liabilities could be compromised, restructured or reduced through a scheme of arrangement in England: Van Gansewinkel Groep BV [2015] EWHC 2151 (Ch).

In a recent decision, the High Court held that legal advice taken in relation to certain transactions was not protected by privilege, as there was prima facie evidence that the purpose of the advice was to structure the transactions in a way that avoided the client’s liability to pay local authority care charges and/or as a transaction defrauding creditors: London Borough of Brent v Kane [2014] EWHC 4564 (Ch).

The High Court has recently considered the interpretation of Section 6(a) of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement: Grant & Ors v WDW 3 Investments Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2807 (Ch).

A recent judgment has clarified the duty of receivers when selling secured property to a company connected to a creditor.

Background

The claimant alleged that the receivers, appointed on behalf of, and selling to a party connected to the creditor, had acted in bad faith. They had placed themselves in a position of conflict and had engaged in self-dealing. As well as dealing with this issue, the court also assessed where the burden of proof lies when allegations of failing to act in good faith are raised.

Held

This was a Court of Appeal decision which focused on s423 Insolvency Act 1986, as well as the ambit of directors' duties to creditors in a distressed company scenario. The below summary relates to the courts' analysis of the latter issue.

Facts

Appleton Papers Inc (API) was a wholly owned subsidiary of BAT Industries plc (BAT).

Key points

• Care should be taken to ensure that finance documents clearly and specifically set out the intention of the parties.

• Lenders should ensure that charges created in security documents are not invalidated or altered by provisions of other finance documents.

Facts

The facts

A liquidator pursued a claim against a former director of a company, that the transfer of the company’s trading inventory in satisfaction of money owed to the former director was a transaction at an undervalue and/or a preference.

An attempt was made to grant floating charge security over the inventory, which the court found was void as it was granted for existing liabilities, at a time when the company was insolvent, to a connected party.

Key points

• The High Court struck out a claim by a liquidator who had already brought a claim arising from the same facts against the same defendants.

• The court relied on the fact that the economic benefit of pursuing the claim would accrue only to the liquidator.

The Facts

Key Points

• There is a low threshold for the granting of an injunction to prevent the presentation of a winding up petition.

• The challenge against the debt in the statutory demand must be in good faith and have sufficient substance.

The Facts

Key Points

• A binding contract by exchange of email did not arise where parties were simply exploring a potential deal.

• Sale by auction is often appropriate where an asset is difficult to value.

• Where no differential treatment of creditors, unfair harm requires that a decision does not withstand logical analysis.

The Facts