A recent judgment has clarified the duty of receivers when selling secured property to a company connected to a creditor.

Background

The claimant alleged that the receivers, appointed on behalf of, and selling to a party connected to the creditor, had acted in bad faith. They had placed themselves in a position of conflict and had engaged in self-dealing. As well as dealing with this issue, the court also assessed where the burden of proof lies when allegations of failing to act in good faith are raised.

Held

Pantiles Investments Limited & Anor v Winckler [2019] EWHC 1298 (Ch)

Background

The Liquidator of the Pantiles Investments Limited (Company) brought a claim (among others) for fraudulent trading against its former director, Ms Winckler. The claim related to a property transaction involving Ms Winkler, an associate (Mr Goldbart) and the Company. In summary, the transaction was as follows:

A creditor who has a monetary judgment against a debtor (“the judgment debtor”) can obtain an order from the Court directing that an identified third-party (“the garnishee”) who owes money to the judgment debtor instead pay the money it owes to the judgment creditor, in full/ partial discharge of the judgment debt.

Judgment was handed down in the High Court this morning, in a case where recognition of a winding-up of a solvent foreign investment fund was granted under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("CBIR").

This is the first time that the English Court has examined in detail the UNCITRAL Model Law on insolvency and the interplay with its Guides to Enactment, as well as case law from various jurisdictions concerning its application to solvent scenarios. Mrs Justice Falk found that:

The below is a quick snapshot of three recent tax-related developments in the insolvency and restructuring sphere.

Farnborough – appointment of a receiver and tax grouping

The Court of Session found that an insurer had not waived disclosure under the Insurance Act 2015 (“the Act”). The case is the first to be decided under the Act.

Background

A fire occurred at Mr Young’s property (“the Property”) causing extensive damage. Mr Young then claimed an indemnity from his insurers, Royal and Sun Alliance PLC (“RSA”).   

As the insolvency profession in Scotland continues to get to grips with the new corporate insolvency rules, Re Sprout Land Holdings Ltd (in Administration) serves as a timely reminder not to forget the basics when dealing with the appointment of administrators by the directors of a company.

Can a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) lead to a stay in the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision?

In January of this year the Court of Appeal refused to stay enforcement of an adjudication award due to a CVA ((1838) Cannon Corporate Limited v Primus Build Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 27). Four months later another enforcement decision against a company subject to a CVA came before the Technology and Construction Court (TCC). This time a stay was granted – so what was the difference?

This is often a question for faced by office-holders of insolvent companies when investigating a company’s affairs, and more of a concern for former directors and shareholders when potentially facing a claim for the return of unlawful dividends or misfeasance.

With the introduction of electronic filing which allows parties to file documents at court 24/7 we consider the recent case of Wright v HMV Ecommerce Limited (2019) in which the court was asked to confirm whether administrators were validly appointed following the directors filing a notice of appointment after the court office was closed.

The Electronic Working Pilot Scheme (“EWP“) Practice Direction came into effect in 2015, initially in the London region. It now applies in all Business and Property Courts in England and Wales from 30 April 2019.