Key Points

• A company in liquidation will not be stopped, on the basis that it was a party to wrongdoing complained of, from bringing claims against directors and other parties for wrongdoing, where the company can be said to be a victim of the wrongdoing.
• Section 213 Insolvency Act 1986 (fraudulent trading) has extraterritorial effect.

The Facts

Key Point

An "establishment" requires business and business activity to be carried out involving dealings with third parties and not simply acts of internal administration.

Facts

On 27 April 2015, the English High Court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement (the “Scheme”) for the US$200 million 9.5% senior notes due 2015 (the “2015 Notes”) issued by DTEK Finance B.V. (the “Issuer”), a Dutch finance subsidiary of the Ukraine’s largest privately owned energy group (“DTEK”). The Scheme was approved by 91.1% of noteholders.

The case of Philpott & Orton v Lycee Francais Charles De Gaulle Schoolserves as a welcome reminder that the English court will strictly enforce agreements to arbitrate by ordering a mandatory stay of court proceedings, even in contexts where court procedures may traditionally apply.

The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in the case of The Trustees of Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme –v- Olympic Airlines SA. Pitmans’ Trustee company, PTL, were the Appellants.

The question at issue was what connection must a foreign company, that has its Centre of Main Interests (COMI) in another EU country, have within the United Kingdom, to entitle an English Court to wind it up.

Key points

• Administrators are not required to look behind a director's motives for appointment of administrators, but they must consider whether the statutory purpose can be achieved  
• Rescuing a company as a going concern does not necessarily require some positive act or improvement  

Facts

In the recent case of Wilson (as liquidator of 375 Live Ltd) v SMC Properties Limited, the English High Court reviewed the policy behind section 127 Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”) and the underlying principles that apply to validation order applications.

The Supreme Court has held that, where a company had been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, the directors’ wrong-doing could not be attributed to the company to prevent it (or its liquidators) from bringing claims against the directors. 

Jetivia S.A. and another v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23

Insolvency practitioners and creditors alike will welcome the decision handed down by the Supreme Court on 22 April 2015. It reduces the wiggle room given to delinquent directors of insolvent companies when claims are brought against them, and confirms the extra-territorial effect of claims against third parties under the fraudulent trading provisions in section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

Background & Facts

The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a Court of Appeal decision refusing to strike out a claim by a “one-man” company in liquidation, which had been the vehicle for a VAT fraud, against its former directors and overseas suppliers alleged to have been involved in the fraud: Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited [2015] UKSC 23 (see our post on the Court of Appeal decision