In Rainy Sky S.A and six others v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50, the Supreme Court provided useful guidance on the role of business common sense in construing a clause in a commercial contract, particularly in circumstances where there are competing plausible constructions, neither of which is clearly preferable on the language used alone.

The facts

When is a company in insolvent? When is a company's assets less than its liabilities (taking account of contingent and prospective liabilities)?

Under English law this is a commercial test and requires that a company has reached a "point of no return" and is not based solely on a review of the company's balance sheet:  

In recent years, several foreign companies have used the English law scheme of arrangement as a flexible restructuring method to compromise creditor claims.  The decision of the High Court in the latest of these cases, that of the German company Rodenstock GmbH, clarifies that an English court will accept jurisdiction where the only connection to England is that the company’s finance documents were governed by English law.

One of the many issues which arose from the collapse of Lehman Brothers was whether “flip provisions”, which reverse a swap counterparty’s priority in the order of payment on insolvency, were invalid on the basis that they contravened the anti-deprivation principle.  This is a long-established common law principle which seeks to prevent an insolvent party from arranging its affairs to frustrate the legitimate claims of creditors.

In its recent decision in Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc,[1] the Supreme Court ruled in favour of investors, clarifying the limits of the anti-deprivation rule and holding that a commercially sensible transaction entered into in good faith and without the intention to evade insolvency laws should not infringe the anti-deprivation rule.

Background

The recent case of Stephen Petitioner offers some clarification regarding issues relating to the validity of appointment of administrators.

The Facts

The Insolvency Act 1986 makes provision for, amongst other things, bankruptcy and Debt Relief Orders.

When a person is made bankrupt, his property vests in the trustee in bankruptcy. Some items, however, are excluded from the estate, including any assured or secure tenancy (s283). Once a bankruptcy order has been made, no creditor in respect of a debt provable in the bankruptcy may have any remedy against the property of the bankrupt 'in respect of that debt' (s285(3)(a)).

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that where the Pensions Regulator (Regulator) exercises its anti-avoidance powers against a company during insolvency, the liability ranks as an expense in the insolvency process.  The 14 October 2011 judgment, in a case involving the Nortel and Lehman Brothers groups, upheld the High Court's landmark decision of last year.

As you may recall, the High Court ruled in December 2010, in a case brought by the administrators of 20 insolvent companies in the Lehman and Nortel groups, that the cost of complying with a financial support direction ("FSD"), issued by the Pensions Regulator after the date of the commencement of a company's administration or liquidation, would rank as an expense of the administration or liquidation.

In Finnerty v Clark, the Court of Appeal has given guidance on what constitutes "good and sufficient" grounds for the removal of administrators. In this case, shareholders of a company in administration were also substantial creditors of the company. They wished the administrators to raise proceedings under Section 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (extortionate credit transactions) to challenge loan agreements that had been entered into by the company prior to administration.