Payless Cash & Carry Limited v Patel and Others [2011]

The decision of Mr Justice Mann in the High Court in Payless Cash & Carry Limited v Patel and Others [2011] exemplifies the detailed investigation which can be carried out by the appointment of a provisional liquidator or a liquidator in cases of suspected fraud. It also contains some useful comments on the extent of the liquidator’s evidential burden in such cases.

Independent Insurance Co Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Aspinall and another UKEAT/0051/11

Independent Insurance Company - IIC- went into provisional liquidation in June 2001.  Half of its employees were made redundant including Mr Aspinall and Mrs O’Callaghan.  They issued proceedings claiming a protective award when IIC failed to comply with its collective consultation obligations, consult with employee representatives or arrange for necessary elections.   

Recent remarks by the English High Court in the insolvency case Green (Liquidator of Stealth Construction Limited) -v- Ireland [2011] EWHC 1305 (Ch) suggest that in some circumstances, and at least in the context of fast-moving real property transactions, an exchange of emails may well satisfy the requisite formalities for creation of a binding and enforceable contract.

Sections 216 and 217 of the Insolvency Act impose draconian sanctions on directors of liquidated companies who reuse "prohibited names". Prohibited names are names that are identical to, or "suggest an association with", a company that has gone into liquidation and of which they were previously directors. The sanctions include criminal penalties and personal liability for debts. It has always been difficult for advisers to confidently advise directors whether a proposed name for a new company would be a prohibited name, given the vague nature of the phrase "suggest an association".

Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and another [2011] UKSC 38.

The Supreme Court has clarified the extent to which it is possible for a contract to provide for a company or individual to lose assets on insolvency.  

Summary

Well-established rules are unchanged, so landlords can still forfeit leases on insolvency. In other cases, if a transaction is entered into in good faith and for valid commercial reasons, it is likely to be upheld.

In 2002 a European subsidiary of Lehman Brothers created a complicated synthetic debt structure called Dante, which was intended to provide credit insurance for another subsidiary, LBSF, against credit events affecting certain reference entities, the obligations of which formed the reference portfolio. A special purpose vehicle issued notes to investors, the proceeds of which were used to purchase collateral which vested in a trust. The issuer entered into a swap with LBSF under which LBSF received the income on the collateral and paid the issuer the amount of interest due to noteholders.

In Finnerty v Clark the appellants were the sole shareholders and substantial unsecured creditors of St George's Property Services (London) Ltd (St George).  The respondents were administrators of St George.  The High Court decision was reviewed in our December 2010 insolvency legal update.

In New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd & Anr v AE Grant & Ors, the Court of Appeal has upheld a first instance decision that section 426 of the Insolvency Act (IA) can be used to enforce a foreign monetary judgment in insolvency proceedings. However, the Court acknowledged that where there exists a statutory framework for the enforcement of foreign judgments, in this case enforcement pursuant to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (the 1933 Act), then enforcement under s.426 of the IA must follow the requirements of the 1933 Act.

TPR settled its dispute with Michael Van de Wiele (VdW) in relation to its UK pension scheme and issued a Contribution Notice (CN) for £60,000. Although this is significantly less than the £21 million originally sought and the £5.08 million decided by the Determinations Panel, TPR says it is “business as usual” for the use of its statutory anti-avoidance powers. A settlement at this level might be viewed as a defeat for TPR and an indication that CNs are not a potent weapon to deal with the avoidance of employer debts. That view would be seriously misguided.

In the much anticipated decision of Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (“LBSF”) and in so doing provided clarification as to the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule (the “Rule”).