It has long been a bone of contention for landlords that tenants can simply file a notice of intention to appoint administrators in order to get an automatic moratorium against any enforcement action. This prevents a landlord from forfeiting, suing or exercising CRAR irrespective of whether the tenant goes into administration and, seemingly, whether it ever really had such an intention.

London & Westcountry Estates Limited ("LWE") went into administration in March 2012. The directors of LWE claimed that its bankers had mis-sold an interest rate swap product to them, and that they were, as a result, entitled to compensation. As LWE was in administration, it was for the administrators to bring the claim against the bankers. The administrators, however, declined to bring an action on behalf of LWE, and also declined to assign the cause of action to the directors.

On 29 February 2012, the Supreme Court handed down its decision In the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) and In the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986. The appeal addressed the meaning and application of Chapter 7 of the Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS 7) issued by the FSA for the safeguarding and  distributing of client money in implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004/39/EC.

Background

His Honour Judge Purle QC in Re Cornercare Limited [2010] EWHC 393 (CH) has clarified English law on the filing of successive notices of intention to appoint administrators. He has held that there is nothing in the relevant provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") to prevent the filing of successive notices of intention to appoint administrators, where the original notice of intention to appoint an administrator had not been acted upon for good reason.

The Court of Appeal has given guidance on when the duty of directors to have regard to the interest of creditors arises. This is an important point, as the general statutory duty of a director to promote the success of the company for the benefit of the company's members is expressly subject to the rules on creditors' interests. The court's decision also considers whether a dividend payment can be challenged as a transaction at an undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Facts

Friendly societies, along with other mutual societies, are registered with and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 (the Act).

A recent challenge in the High Court by liquidators to recover assets from a director of an insolvent company has highlighted various points of company law. In particular, the court had to consider directors' authority, share buybacks, and transactions between a company and its directors.

The claimant (D) was the managing director and controlling shareholder of the defendant company (the Company). The Company at first had one other director, D's wife, and later a second (W).

The liquidator challenged three transactions:

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.

More important changes to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86) and other insolvency- related legislation come into force this week (1 October 2015) as a result of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (SBEEA 2015).

We have updated our Implementation Timetable to reflect the changes.

Lending to a foreign company? If you choose English law to govern your facility documents and provide for the English court to have exclusive jurisdiction, an English scheme may be a viable means of restructuring the debt later, if the need arises.