ADVISORY | DISPUTES | TRANSACTIONS “Gagging orders”: an office holder’s secret weapon December 2016 Introduction Practitioners are fully aware of the extensive powers available under ss 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) allowing administrators and liquidators as office holders (OHs) to require individuals and organisations to disgorge information.

On 22 April 2015 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, which was heard in October last year.  In short it decided that: 1) defendant directors cannot raise illegality as a defence to a claim by a company where the directors themselves acted wrongfully; and 2) a claim in fraudulent trading under Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 213)has extra-territorial effect.

Background

In Bailey & Others (Joint Liquidators of D&D Wines International Limited) v Angove’s Pty Limited¹, the Court of Appeal overturned a decision of the High Court, and so permitted the liquidator of an insolvent agent to recover funds due to it from end-customers despite the agency having been terminated.

Background

The UK’s Insolvency Act 1986 sets out in s.123 various tests to determine whether a company should be deemed unable to pay its debts. The relevance of these tests to distressed companies is obvious: deciding as they do when it is appropriate to seek an administration order or present a winding up petition. They also help determine directors’ duties, antecedent transactions and issues such as wrongful and fraudulent trading.

We note with interest the Government's Discussion Paper, 'Transparency & Trust: Enhancing The Transparency of UK Company Ownership And Increasing Trust in UK Business', published yesterday.

In the Paper, the Government proposes to (amongst other things):

A recent High Court case involving unlawful loans to directors illustrates the potential pitfalls involved in calculating limitation periods, and the circumstances in which the usual six year statutory limitation period will not apply to a recovery claim against a fiduciary.

Facts

Broadside Colours and Chemicals Ltd was a family firm supplying dyes to the textile trade. The directors were Geoffrey Button, his wife Catherine Button, and their son James Button. Only the father and son were shareholders.

In BNY Corporate Trustee Service v Eurosail UK1, the Court of Appeal rejected a “mechanical” definition of balance sheet insolvency.

In Griffi n v UHY Hacker Young & Partners1 the court dismissed an application for summary judgment on the basis of the ex turpi causa (or illegality) defence, and made a number of observations as to uncertainties in the law as it stands.

In the present fi nancial climate, customers are increasingly asking for business critical software or other assets to be transferred to the customer should the supplier become insolvent, for the legitimate reason that the customer needs security of supply. Two recent Court of Appeal cases remind us that customers who outsource to and contract with potentially vulnerable service providers need to take account of the “anti-deprivation principle” when doing this.

The Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 received Royal Assent on 25 March 2010. The Act modernises the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 by streamlining the procedure by which a third party claimant can recover compensation from the insurer of a defendant.