On 1 April 2008 The Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008 (Regulations) came into force. The Regulations extend the exclusion from the obligation to pay rates in respect of unoccupied non-domestic rates to those premises where the owner (or lessee, being a person entitled to possession) is a company in administration pursuant to Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 or is subject to an administration order under the former administration provisions.

At the end of 2006 a decision of the Court of Appeal in Churchill v First Independent Factors and Finance Limited (Churchill) caused consternation among those involved in the management of insolvent companies who are also involved in the management of the company that acquires the whole or a substantial part of the insolvent business.

Re Powerhouse Limited: Prudential Assurance Company Limited v PRG Powerhouse Limited [2007] EWHC 1002 Ch Guarantees are widely used in commercial transactions to provide assurance to creditors that debts or other obligations owed to them are discharged fully in the event the principal debtor fails to perform. This assurance was shaken by the steps taken in early 2006 by PRG Powerhouse Limited (Powerhouse) to enter into a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) that contained proposals to release certain parent company guarantees given to landlords of premises being vacated by Powerhouse.

In a decision that will have important repercussions for creditors with the benefit of guarantees, the High Court this week has held that a company in financial difficulties may not propose a voluntary arrangement which is unfairly prejudicial on its terms to certain creditors.

Re Powerhouse

The English High Court has granted an injunction to trustees in bankruptcy and pierced the corporate veil of companies which were operated by a bankrupt as his agents and nominees and which held assets on his behalf (Wood and another v Baker and others [2015] EWHC 2536 (Ch)).

Background

Months of anticipation culminated in a successful result for the Liquidators of Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) on 22 April 2015 in a pivotal fraud case, whereby the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal involving the ‘illegality defence’, in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23.

The UK court recently considered the extent of s236 Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) in the case of Re Comet Group Ltd (in liquidation); Khan and others v Whirlpool (UK) Ltd and another [2014] EWHC 3477 (Ch).

This case considered whether Bulmers Transport Limited (“Bulmers”) was under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner” pursuant to Regulation 8(7) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”).

Comment

The case provides some helpful clarity on the inter-relationship of Regulation 8(7) TUPE and s388 Insolvency Act 1986, when determining whether a company is under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner”.

The case held that a judge was right to strike out a claim brought by a liquidator under sections 238 and 241 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as the transactions alleged to have been made at an undervalue were not transactions entered into by the company.

Comment

The recent Court of Appeal case of JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Limited v. Davis Haulage Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 267 has set out the importance of there being a settled intention to enter administration and indicated that this is a pre-requisite to an out of court appointment being validly made.