The EAT's judgment

The defendant guaranteed payment of the price of equipment sold by the claimant to the defendant’s subsidiary. The claimant then entered into agreements with the subsidiary and various finance companies under which title in certain of the goods passed to the finance companies in return for payment of part of the relevant purchase price. The subsidiary paid some of the purchase price of the goods, as did the finance companies but the balance remained unpaid when the subsidiary went into liquidation. The claimant claimed on the guarantee and issued proceedings.

A guarantor can be made bankrupt where the terms of the guarantee create a debt obligation.

Case summary:

When a contractor failed to pay certain agreed invoices the sub-contractor issued a winding up petition. The contractor applied to halt the advertising of the petition on the grounds that the debts were bona fide disputed on substantial grounds as there was a cross claim which exceeded the amount claimed. The court refused to halt proceedings because the absence of a withholding notice under the HGCRA meant that there were no substantial grounds for disputing the petition.

Comment:

When a company goes into administration, time does not stop running against its creditors' claims for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980. This is different to where a company goes into liquidation as time does then stop running. The effect there is that the claim stays live whereas in an administration, once the limitation period has expired, the claim is time-barred.

Knowing how much money you owe and are owed is critical when considering disputes with other parties. You need to consider whether a right of set-off exists between you and the other party.

In June 2007 we reported on the decision in Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v PRG Powerhouse Limited. Although the case has given rise to a great deal of debate, until now there has been no subsequent reported case in which the court has had to consider whether and how a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) might fairly effect a compromise of a landlord's claim against a guarantor of its tenant.

In a recent decision, Heritage Home Group LLC, et al., Case No. 18-11736-KG, 2018 WL 4684802 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 27, 2018), Judge Kevin Gross, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Delaware, held that a consultant tasked with liquidating the debtors’ assets under a store closing and asset disposition agreement (“Disposition Agreement”) is not a professional, and consequently, not required to be retained under Section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Delaware’s Bankruptcy Court has recently issued two insightful opinions that impact a creditor’s ability to establish the “receipt” element of a valuable 503(b)(9) administrative expense priority claim.

On March 23, 2017, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Court”) issued an opinion in the chapter 15 case of Banco Cruzeiro do Sul, S.A., a Brazilian bank (“BCSUL” or the “Debtor”), holding, among other things, that section 1521(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code does not prevent foreign representatives from commencing state law fraudulent conveyance actions. See Laspro Consultores LTDA v. Alinia Corp. (In re Massa Falida Do Banco Cruzeiro Do Sul S.A.), No. 14-22974-BKC-LMI, Adv. Pro. No. 16-01315-LMI, 2017 WL 1102814 (Bankr. S.D. Fla.