Background
High-profile use of company voluntary arrangements or CVAs, has led to widespread media coverage and controversies. Household names such as Jamie's Italian, Prezzo, Toys R Us, Mothercare, Gourmet Burger Kitchen and more recently Debenhams are amongst the growing list of companies who have followed this well-trodden path, with varying degrees of success. Those companies unable to turn their fortunes around face administration or liquidation.
In Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Ltd [2019] EWHC 2890 the Secretary presented petitions under s 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 to wind up two companies on public interest grounds. These companies were PAG Asset Preservation Limited and MB Vacant Property Solutions Limited (the Companies).
The Privy Council has rejected an attempt to block a cross-border liquidation on procedural grounds in UBS AG New York v Fairfield Sentry [2019] UKPC 20.
Back in the late 1990’s the ubiquitous Katie Price t/a Jordan was at the height of her fame, gracing the pages of our tabloids, gentlemen’s publications such as Loaded and FHM and perhaps the odd bedroom wall of a rather poor Law student. It was reported at the time she had a net worth of around £45million.
In December 2018 with her finances now somewhat diminished, Katie entered into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (“IVA”) with her creditors. In November this year she was made bankrupt for failing to comply with the same.
In this three part blog we highlight three recent court decisions concerning landlord rights and insolvency, which provide cautionary warnings and surprising twists. The questions we consider are:
- Does a company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) permanently vary the terms of a lease?
- Can a landlord be forced to accept a surrender of a lease?
- What are the consequences of taking money from a rent deposit if the tenant company is in administration?
In part 1 we consider the first question.
Retentions have been a common feature in the construction industry for over 100 years, yet over the past two years there has been a growing shift in the construction industry’s views on retentions and whether reform of retention as we know it is required. Adele Parsons discusses these recent developments further.
Being involved with a company which is experiencing financial difficulties is clearly a stressful experience for directors. As well as having to deal with the operational consequences of the company’s distress, directors must ensure that they comply with their duties and obligations under the Companies Act 2006 (CA2006) and the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA1986). Directors of listed entities are in a particularly difficult position, as in addition to those duties they must comply with their obligations to the markets.
Directors’ duties
The last few decades have seen a steady increase in ‘non-party costs orders’. These are court orders against non-participating people or entities requiring them to pay (either fully or partially) the costs of litigation in which they are not formally involved as parties. This year has proven to be one of flux for such liabilities.
Background
The Second Claimant (“Mr Hunt”) was appointed liquidator of the First Claimant (“BHUK”) on 11 December 2012. The action against the Defendant was commenced on 15 October 2013. By this time BHUK had already completed the process of administration and liquidation and the only material asset in the liquidation was the claim against the Defendant.
A recent TCC decision has provided further guidance on a liquidator’s options when seeking payments owed to insolvent companies through adjudication and the interplay with the Insolvency Rules. The decision establishes an exception to the general principle that such adjudication proceedings will not be enforced (and are liable to be injuncted) where the responding party has a cross-claim.