In the matter of Cognotec Ltd (in receivership)

Section 60(14) provides that a transaction in breach of section 60 is voidable against any person who had notice of the facts which constitute the breach.

The company sought to void the debenture which secured the loan on the basis that section 60 had not been complied with and the receiver appointed on foot of the debenture brought a motion for directions.

The court held that:

By order dated 20 January 2009, the Supreme Court, in the first case on examinership to come before it in over 10 years, allowed an appeal against the order of the High Court dated 13 January 2009 (McGovern J) which refused the petition of Gallium Limited (trading as the First Equity Group) (under the protection of the Court) for the appointment of an examiner and appointed Mr Kieran Wallace of KPMG as examiner of the Company. The Supreme Court delivered its reasoned judgment on 3 February 2009.  

Under the Companies Acts, the liquidator of every insolvent company is obliged to bring a court application to have the insolvent company’s directors restricted from acting as director or secretary of any other company for a period of five years unless that other company has a paid-up share capital of approximately €63,500. The relevant provision of the Companies Acts (Section 150) applies to any person who was a director of the insolvent company either at the date of or within 12 months of the start of the company’s winding-up. Section 150 also applies to shadow directors.

Introduction

The credit crisis has led to many opportunities for financial and strategic buyers to purchase all or part of a business or assets from financially troubled companies at significantly discounted prices. In such deals, buyers run the risk that the transaction may be set aside on the basis of voidable preference rules (the so-called 'actio pauliana').

Esta nota tiene por objeto comentar las innovaciones introducidas por el RD Ley 4/2014 en el ejercicio de acciones de reintegración concursal contra o en el seno de acuerdos de refinanciación.

Payless Cash & Carry Limited v Patel and Others [2011]

The decision of Mr Justice Mann in the High Court in Payless Cash & Carry Limited v Patel and Others [2011] exemplifies the detailed investigation which can be carried out by the appointment of a provisional liquidator or a liquidator in cases of suspected fraud. It also contains some useful comments on the extent of the liquidator’s evidential burden in such cases.

In the recent case of BNY Corporate v Eurosail[1], the Court of Appeal for the first time considered how the 'balance sheet' test of corporate insolvency in section 123(2) Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) should be applied.

Section 123(2) IA 1986 provides:-

'A company is also deemed unable to pay its debts if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the value of the company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities.'

In BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail UK 2007 - 3BL PLC & Ors, the English Court of Appeal has decided that the mere fact that a company’s aggregate liabilities exceed its assets may not render the company to be deemed unable to pay its debts under section 123(2) of the UK Insolvency Act 1986 (commonly referred to as the “balance sheet test”). The test is whether a company has reached a point of no return such that its state of affairs is not or is unlikely to continue having regard to its contingent and future liabilities.

In BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail–UK 2007–3BL Plc and others, the Court of Appeal ruled on the interpretation of the so-called "balance-sheet" test of insolvency under section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. This is essentially that a company is deemed unable to pay its debts if the value of its assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities. This appears to be the first reported case on the interpretation of the balance-sheet test of insolvency.

In the case of Global Knafaim Leasing Ltd & Anor v The Civil Aviation Authority & Ors [2010] EWHC 1348 (Admin), the UK’s High Court held that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and BAA Ltd. (BAA) were entitled to a statutory lien of a lessor’s aircraft, to ensure a lessor pays all the outstanding route and aircraft charges of an insolvent operator and its fleet of aircraft, and not just those related to the aircraft of the lessor.