In Paul David Wood & Anor v Timothy Darren Baker & Ors, the joint trustees in bankruptcy of the bankrupt's property successfully obtained injunctions freezing the assets and business of the respondents and restraining them from dealing with such assets and business. This case is an illustration of how the court may apply the "evasion principle", a principle identified in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd, in piercing the corporate veil.
Background
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 Facts
In between the presentation of a winding up petition and making of a winding up order, a company entered into a settlement agreement with the Respondent, who founded the company and was previously a shareholder and director of the company.
The Decision
Key point
In certain circumstances the court will look to parallel statutory provisions where existing applicable statute does not accommodate the situation, as long as the latter is not offended, expanded or altered by doing so.
The facts
This application for directions was brought by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (the “Company”) on:
Key points
Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators
Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”
Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances
The Facts
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.