The Facts

Norton Aluminium Ltd (NAL) went into Administration following a partially successful nuisance claim against it and subsequently went into Liquidation. Mr Dickinson was the managing director and controlling shareholder and brought a claim to recover a secured loan made by him to NAL. The Liquidators counterclaimed to set aside or recover compensation for various transactions, including a share buyback from Mr Dickinson and connected parties by NAL for £2.5 million and the sale of a subsidiary to Mr Dickinson for £1.

It has been held that full and frank disclosure was not provided to the Court by a Russian Liquidator in granting a Recognition Order in the UK, which resulted in the Recognition Order being set aside. The issue was determined despite the parties being in agreement that the Liquidator's claims should be withdrawn.

The High Court has recently considered the interpretation of Section 6(a) of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement: Grant & Ors v WDW 3 Investments Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2807 (Ch).

In Crowden and Crowden v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd[2017] EWHC 2597 (Comm) the Commercial Court found in favour of the Defendant insurer on the disputed construction of an "insolvency" exclusion in a professional indemnity insurance policy.  The case is a useful reminder of the approach which the English Courts take to the construction of exclusions in insurance contracts.  

1. Background

Global Corporate Limited v Dirk Stefan Hale [2017] EWHC 2277 (Ch) 

Summary

A recent judgment re-iterates the importance of carefully drafting a deed of assignment when assigning claims.

In Global Corporate, the liquidators of a company assigned certain claims by way of a deed of assignment to Global Corporate Limited (the “Assignee”). The Assignee (the Applicant in this case) then brought several claims against the company’s former director and shareholder.

A recent Court of Session case has made clear that a Scottish court cannot wind up or make an administration order in respect of an English registered company, and the same applies to English courts and Scottish companies.

Breyer Group Plc v RBK Engineering Ltd

The High Court's recent judgment in Breyer Group Plc v RBK Engineering Limited [2017] EWHC 1206 provides a timely reminder for parties to construction contracts of the appropriate (and inappropriate) uses of winding-up petitions.

The case concerned a successful application made by Breyer Group PLC (Breyer) for an order preventing RBK Engineering Limited (RBK) from continuing with a petition to wind up Breyer on the basis of a disputed debt.

How did the dispute arise?

In summary:

The recent case ofCrumper v Candey Ltd [2017] EWCH 1511 (Ch) delivered an updated analysis of the operation of section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“s245”). Although the insolvency proceedings (and much of the litigation before and after the insolvency commenced) originated in the British Virgin Islands, they were recognised in England and Wales under the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006.

In the recent case of Cherkasov & others v Olegovich [2017] EWHC 756 (Ch) the English courts considered the public policy exception set out in Article 6 Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) and whether security for costs could be ordered against the official receiver of a Russian company (who had obtained recognition in England under CIBR) when he applied for an order for the production of evidence by some of the former managers of a Russian company under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA).

Pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 a company's liquidator can recover any of the company's property that is transferred after the date on which a winding up petition is issued. This is because s.127 makes any disposition of property (such as land, money and goods) in the period after issue of a winding up petition void.