The Court of Appeal gave judgment today (15 November 2013) in favour of licensed insolvency practitioner Andrew Hosking (D), unanimously upholding a strike out judgment of Peter Smith J made on 22 February 2013. 

Stephen Hunt, liquidator of Ovenden Colbert Printers Limited (“OCP”), had sued D and 8 other defendants.  His claim against D was brought pursuant to sections 238 and 241 Insolvency Act 1986.  He alleged that D had received or benefited from payments made by OCP which constituted transactions at an undervalue. 

The guidelines laid down by the English courts for applying the balance sheet test for insolvency affects not only whether a company is technically insolvent, but also the enforceability of clauses in transactional banking documents and the ability of a liquidator to challenge certain antecedent transactions. The Supreme Court’s decision will therefore be welcomed by advisors, bankers and insolvency practitioners as it has overturned the high threshold laid down by the Court of Appeal.

CMS has succeeded in its application on behalf of HSBC to overturn the High Court’s decision inRe Tambrook Jersey Limited. The ruling will be welcomed by creditors and practitioners alike as the Court of Appeal has confirmed the UK courts have jurisdiction to grant assistance to a foreign court under the cross-border assistance provisions of section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 even where formal insolvency proceedings have not been opened in the foreign jurisdiction.

CMS is advising HSBC on its expedited appeal of a recent controversial decision by the High Court refusing assistance under the cross-border assistance provisions of section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986.  The decision of the Court of Appeal will be of great interest to those involved in cross-border insolvency and restructuring as well as foreign courts.

In a recent case, the court held that a party to a settlement agreement (in this case a broker) cannot restrict the indemnity it is providing so that the indemnity is not payable if the insured goes into administration, or liquidation, or undergoes some other insolvency event. The decision is important on its own facts. But it does also raise questions about the legitimacy of other clauses in insurance contracts which depend on whether or not the insured or reinsured has entered into any kind of insolvency event.

The Facts

Mr Brown was declared bankrupt on 12 May 2016, following possession proceedings and costs order against him which had not been paid. Mr Brown did not accept that the original litigation leading to his bankruptcy was valid, and as a result did not accept that the bankruptcy proceedings were valid either. Mr Brown represented himself at all hearings and refused legal representation or assistance.

The English Court refused an application by Liquidators to stay English proceedings pending the outcome of similar proceedings in the US.

The Joint Liquidators of a Luxembourg company ("the Company") applied to stay English proceedings that they had brought against private equity investors ("the Defendants") until similar proceedings in the US had been resolved, or for three months to enable the Liquidators to raise finance for the litigation.

Directors against whom claims for a misfeasance have been intimated often turn to limitation and set off in defence of a request for the repayment or restoration of the relevant sums or property.

Misfeasance and limitation

Section 236 Insolvency Act ("IA") 1986 enables the Court power to summon persons with information about the affairs of a company to appear before it and / or to produce documents. In our August bulletin we considered the decision of the English High Court in Re MF Global [2015] EWHC 2319 when it was held that s236 does not have extra-territorial effect. However, having looked at the issue again in Official Receiver v Norriss [2015] EWHC 2697, the High Court has departed from the position in Re MF Global.

The High Court considered whether it would be appropriate to approve a scheme of arrangement for a company incorporated in Luxembourg where the company's COMI had been moved to England and there had been a change in the governing law and jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts.