Summary

The High Court recently handed down the judgment in Ralls Builders Ltd (In Liquidation), Re [2016] EWHC 1812 (Ch). It was held that liquidators and administrators are not able to recover their own costs and expenses of investigating a wrongful trading claim from the directors of a company, even following a finding of wrongful trading under section 214 Insolvency Act 1986.

Background

Summary

Parties wishing to resist the enforcement of an adjudication decision on the grounds of insolvency usually need to show that the claiming party will not be in a position to repay the amount of the decision if required to do so in later court or arbitration proceedings. Two recent cases in the TCC have, however, shown that different considerations can apply in the less typical circumstances of a members’ voluntary liquidation and a creditors voluntary arrangement.

Maguire & Co v Mar City Developments

The legal effect of “limited recourse” arrangements have been thrown into fresh doubt by a first instance decision of the respected Mr Justice David Richards in the case of Arm Asset Backed Securities S.A. [2013] EWHC 3351.

This decision is relevant to the following common financing arrangements.

Shareholders who fail to intervene to stem the losses in a company they control may be held personally liable for the company’s debts if it is subsequently liquidated, according to the Supreme Court.

Under Hungarian law, a shareholder’s liability (in a limited liability company) is usually limited to their capital contribution. The corporate ‘veil’ can only be pierced (making the shareholder personally liable for the company’s debts) in special circumstances.

Share purchase agreements often include indemnities or covenants to pay designed to protect the buyer for a period after completion where some unquantifiable liability is anticipated that will impact on the value of the company being acquired. This is particularly so in the case of unpaid tax.

When a tenant goes into liquidation and its liquidator surrenders the lease what effect does this have on any obligations to remove any alterations that the tenant has made during the term and generally reinstate?  The high court has recently decided that the terms of a surrender that released both parties from rights arising “on or after, but not before, the date of this surrender” were sufficient to release the tenant from its obligations to reinstate the premises because these obligations were future obligations.

In our Law-Now of 4 April 2012 (click here for link), we reported on the decision of the court in the case of Leisure (Norwich) II Limited v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited (in administration).  The detailed judgment has now been released, setting out the rationale for the decision and summarising the position on rents in administration generally.

The legal position on this issue is now:

In a recent case, the court held that a party to a settlement agreement (in this case a broker) cannot restrict the indemnity it is providing so that the indemnity is not payable if the insured goes into administration, or liquidation, or undergoes some other insolvency event. The decision is important on its own facts. But it does also raise questions about the legitimacy of other clauses in insurance contracts which depend on whether or not the insured or reinsured has entered into any kind of insolvency event.

A Court of Appeal decision last week has broadly upheld previous TCC guidance as to the ability of companies in liquidation or those subject to CVAs to commence and enforce adjudication proceedings against their creditors. Although theoretically possible, adjudication proceedings commenced by companies in liquidation are now liable to be restrained by a court injunction.  Adjudications by companies subject to a CVA are more likely to be appropriate and, depending on the circumstances, may be enforced without a stay of execution.

Insolvency set-off: a recap