Summary

Liquidators of a company pursued proceedings against the former administrators/liquidators of the company (Messrs White and Wood) alleging negligent and deliberate/dishonest overcharging of fees.

The facts

Re Diffraction Diamonds DMCC [2017] EWHC 1368 (Ch)

This case deals with the English Court’s jurisdiction to wind up foreign companies, on the grounds of public interest. While it does not create new law, it is a helpful review of the authorities, particularly Re Titan International Inc [1998] 1 BVLC 102 (“Titan”).

Case Facts

HMRC has published guidance on its views on the recent changes to the tax rules in relation to company windings up.

The Finance Act 2016 introduced a new Targeted Anti-Avoidance Rule (TAAR) to prevent “phoenixism” – broadly where solvent companies are liquidated so that shareholders dispose of their shares to realise a Capital Gains Tax charge rather than paying income tax on the profits that would otherwise be distributed.

The new rules will broadly apply where:

The UK case of Cherkasov & Ors v Olegovich, the Official Receiver of Dalnyaya Step concerns an application for security for costs against a liquidator.

A Russian court appointed a liquidator to the Russian subsidiary of a Guernsey unit trust.  The liquidator applied for recognition of the liquidation proceeding as a foreign proceeding in the UK under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006.  The application for a recognition order was granted.

In a comprehensive judgment arising out of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the UK Supreme Court recently determined the ranking of creditors.

Principally, the Court held that Lehman Brothers International (Europe)'s subordinated debt holders were "at the bottom of the waterfall", behind statutory interest and non-provable debt claimants.

In 2016 the High Court considered the validity of an assignment of a lease by a tenant to its guarantor. The antiavoidance provisions in section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 ("1995 Act") strictly limit the freedom of contract of parties to leases governed by that Act, broadly, those granted after 1995. Agreements which frustrate those provisions are void even if they are commercially justifiable.

BRIEF FACTS AND DECISION

EMI Group Limited v O&H Q1 Limited [2016] EWHC 529 (Ch)

The English courts have recently wrestled with the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (“CBIR”) in a case about the lifting of the automatic stay on proceedings against Korean company STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co Ltd

A case of two companies, one incorporated in Dubai and the other in England, involved in a network of businesses producing contrived fancy colour diamond valuations were eventually wound up by English courts in the interest of the public.

[2017] EWHC 1206 (Ch)

Deputy Judge Alexander QC had to consider an application for an order that R be restrained from proceeding further with a creditor’s petition to wind up B. The Judge was in no doubt that the application was misconceived. First B was not unable to pay its debts. B on the evidence provided to the court was solvent with cash in hand and a substantial unused credit facility. Further, the reason B had not paid the substantial sums claimed was that it had arguable defences as well as substantial cross-claims of its own. The Judge was clear that:

Today, thanks to the high-cost of current court fees, small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face the problem of not getting paid by a customer and then, subsequently, not being able to go to court to get paid.