Administrations are still on the rise and our high streets, retail parks and shopping centres are changing appearance as units lie empty. You may not have heard the term ‘pre-packs’ but it could become an option for retailers to help overcome this depressing trend.  

In this edition of Retail Matters we have pulled together the facts about pre-packs, the pros and cons and an outline of the ways in which insolvency practitioners and other professional bodies are aiming to ensure that the procedure is not abused.  

What is a pre-pack?  

"Leaving the mice in charge of the cheese..." is how one commentator described the now far from unusual phenomenon of the pre-pack administration sale. But what is meant by a "pre-pack"; are they lawful and what is the legitimate area for concern? While they were fairly uncommon in the past, pre-packs now seem to have become all the rage. Why? What scope is there for challenge or review if abuse is suspected?

What is a "pre-pack"?

In the matter of Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC [2009] EWHC 442 (Ch), Mr Justice Lewison granted an application for the transfer of personal data in the possession of the joint provisional liquidators of a UK subsidiary to the trustee in bankruptcy of its parent company in the US, Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC. The application was granted on the basis that it was necessary for reasons of substantial public interest.

Treasury has published two orders made under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Banking Act 2009. The orders are:  

Following the rejection of Stylo's proposed CVA earlier this year and the successful "unfair prejudice" challenge of Powerhouse's CVA in 2007, the recently approved CVA proposal put forward by JJB Sports, widely described by commentators as "ground-breaking", has generated significant interest in the CVA process and the use of a CVA to effect a solvent restructuring of a listed company without resorting to administration and a suspension of trading in its shares.

Where a debtor's assets exceed his liabilities, the onus is on the debtor to prove he can not pay his debts if a creditor seeks to annul the bankruptcy order.

In Paulin v Paulin and another, the defendant petitioned for his own bankruptcy claiming he was unable to pay his debts. The claimant applied for the order to be annulled claiming the defendant could afford to pay his debts and was deliberately attempting to defeat her claims in the matrimonial proceedings.

Where the entirety of a debt is not included in an agreement to settle, a creditor can continue to prove in a bankruptcy for the balance.

Introduction

This Note deals with the potential liabilities under English Law of the directors and officers (secretary and managers) of a UK company in the event of its (potential) insolvency.  

Summary  

Directors - and, to a lesser extent, other officers of a company - face a number of areas of potential personal liability. Of most relevance is the liability of the directors for ‘wrongful trading’.  

The threat of insolvency proceedings against a corporate debtor can greatly assist a creditor's primary objective of getting paid, preferably in advance of everyone else. This is particularly so where the debtor is prevaricating but there is no genuine dispute that the sum in question is due and owing. Although the courts decry the use of the winding-up procedure as a means of debt collection, it is often a very effective tool.

Consider the following when faced with a corporate debtor who is refusing, without genuine reason, to settle its debts:

An intervening bankruptcy will not defeat a charging order where the bankruptcy was entered into in an attempt to frustrate the charge.