A recently published case has shone a new light on the well-known fact of English company law – that a company has its own legal personality and is therefore separate and distinct from its members and directors.

Thus, a company shields its members and directors from most liabilities. For directors, this protective veil is pierced in certain limited circumstances such as those set out below.

Matthew Czyzyk, Natalie Blanc and Natalie Raine, Ropes & Gray

This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

In summary

It has taken over 20 months, but we now have a reported decision from the High Court in England on the operation of the new moratorium provisions introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. Sir Alastair Norris, sitting as a High Court judge, has rejected a creditor's attempt to bring a moratorium to an end following a monitors' decision not to terminate the moratorium.

With the UK Government protections to prevent a flood of corporate insolvencies all now tailing off, will 2022 see the much talked about "tsunami" of insolvencies? Market views on that are mixed but it does seem certain that there will be at least a significant upturn in insolvencies compared to 2020 and 2021. With that in mind, it's worth considering the major differences between Scotland and England when it comes to corporate insolvencies.

1. There is no Official Receiver in Scotland

Subject to exceptions, a director of a company that enters into liquidation is restricted from being involved in the management of a new or existing company (SecondCo) with the same or a sufficiently similar name to that of the liquidating company (section 216 Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)). If in breach of s.216, a director will have personal liability for all the relevant debts SecondCo incurred during the period of the breach under s.217 IA 1986.

On 29 September 2021 the High Court dismissed a challenge to Caffè Nero’s 2020 CVA brought by one of its landlords, Ronald Young. Young asserted that the CVA was unfairly prejudicial and subject to material irregularities (thereby engaging both grounds of challenge under s.6 of the Insolvency Act 1986), and that the CVA nominees and company directors had breached their duties by failing to adjourn or postpone voting on the CVA upon receipt of a late-in-the-day offer for the Caffè Nero group.

The use of a company name which is the same or similar to the name of an insolvent company is fraught with complications. 

Were you at any stage involved in a company which went into liquidation or administration? Are you now involved in another business with the same or a similar name? If so, you could inadvertently have fallen foul of the criminal and civil liability under Section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Joseph Miller explains the pitfalls of this complicated and often overlooked area of insolvency law.

While testators generally have freedom to decide how to dispose of their assets in England and Wales, there are limits to this freedom, including where a beneficiary of the estate is made bankrupt. If the testator passes away during the course of the beneficiary’s bankruptcy, the legacy will usually pass to the trustee in bankruptcy for the benefit of creditors instead of to the beneficiary.

Creditors can often confuse (i) the outlawed practice of “phoenixing” with (ii) pre-pack administrations. The former is an abuse of the privilege of limited liability through (often repeatedly) liquidating a company laden with debts only to emerge shortly after under the guise of a new limited company, debt free, effectively carrying on the exact same business with the same name, premises and people.

Death does not release an individual from their debts and liabilities, nor does it allow transactions made to loved ones to escape challenge. This is so regardless of whether the transactions were made with the intention to defraud creditors.

Insolvency administration orders (IAOs)