A Sheriff has answered this question in the affirmative and given reasoning which will be helpful for trustees (under a trust deed) in considering whether to raise sequestration proceedings against the debtor.

Background

The Sheriff Court at Airdrie was asked in April 2019 to comment on the ability of a trustee under a trust deed to summarily apply for a debtor's sequestration in the case of David Mond v Craig Booth.

In Martin v McLaren Construction Ltd [2019 EWHC 2059 (Ch) the Court was asked to decide whether the Respondent had issued a valid Demand Letter against the Applicant prior to issuing a Statutory Demand, and even if it had not, whether the Court should still exercise its discretion to uphold the Statutory Demand pursuant to Rule 10.5(5) of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.

In this week's update: directors did not need to consider the rights of creditors when declaring a dividend as the company was not insolvent, the Law Commission is seeking views on the law of intermediated securities, polling information can be inside information and a couple of other items.

Court considers whether demerger by dividend was valid (part 4)

In Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited v ING Bank NV [2019] EWHC 676 (Comm), Moulder J rejected a purchaser’s claim that their damages for breach of warranty should be calculated by reference to a hypothetical indemnity which they would have negotiated with the seller had the true position been disclosed prior to entering into the agreement.

The lender's dilemma

Lenders who take security over shares in an English company have to decide whether to take either:

• a legal mortgage by becoming registered owner of the shares
• an equitable mortgage or charge with the chargor remaining the registered owner.

A legal mortgage gives the lender the right to vote subject to the terms of the mortgage document and prevents the chargor from disposing of legal title to the shares to a third party, as the lender is the registered owner of the shares.

In Re SCL Group Ltd (& others) [2019] EWHC 954 (Ch), the High Court considered a range of allegations concerning the administrators to the Cambridge Analytica group and whether they should be appointed as liquidators following a failed sale process.

Central to the case were allegations of misconduct and potential bias against a particular creditor. The claims were rejected. But, the case contains useful observations about the role of administrators and their duties:

The High Court has confirmed that a sale by a receiver to a buyer connected with the mortgagee does not engage the self-dealing rule and further considered the extent of the duties on an enforcement sale.

The Court of Appeal has clarified a technical question on the proper operation of Section 245 IA 1986 and the extent to which it might invalidate floating charges taken to secure the supply of goods or services.

Section 245 IA 1986 invalidates floating charges created during the 12 months before insolvency, except (among other matters) to the extent of:

In Re HMV Ecommerce Ltd [2019] EWHC 9(Ch), the directors purported to appoint administrators out-of-court by e-filing the appointment documents at court at 5.54pm on December 28th. The Court’s decision on the validity of the appointment is welcome – but it did not address the underlying problem.

Background

The case concerned royalty payments, which a creditor had a contractual right to receive, arising from iron ore produced at a mine in Sierra Leone.

The parent company of the Sierra Leonean mining company went into administration and administrators from PwC were appointed. The creditor's director called the administrators to stress the importance of bringing the royalty payments to the attention of a third party purchaser.

The administrators subsequently sold the mine, but did not make the purchaser aware of the royalty issue.