The legal effect of “limited recourse” arrangements have been thrown into fresh doubt by a first instance decision of the respected Mr Justice David Richards in the case of Arm Asset Backed Securities S.A. [2013] EWHC 3351.

This decision is relevant to the following common financing arrangements.

In Crystal Palace FC v Kavanagh the Court of Appeal has decided that liability for staff dismissed by the administrator before the sale of the club did not pass to the buyer under TUPE.

In Crystal Palace FC Ltd v Kavanagh & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1410, the Court of Appeal considered whether dismissals made by an administrator to keep a business alive with the ultimate aim of selling it were automatically unfair under TUPE, in which case liability would pass to the buyer. 

Comment

It is a fact of life that whatever goes up will normally come back down (but not necessarily vice versa). Nowhere is this more keenly felt than in the world of British football, where those clubs that just about stay in the Premier League reap riches that would be the envy of Plutus, Ancient Greek god of wealth, and those that drop out face a desperate chase for money simply to stay afloat.  

English schemes of arrangement (Schemes) have become a useful and established procedure for restructuring the debts of foreign companies incurred under English law finance documents. For an overview of why they are useful and how they work, see our July 2011 article "Financial restructurings of foreign companies through English schemes of arrangement".

Whenever there is an apparent monetary debt, common practice is for a claimant to threaten a winding up petition as part of the tactics to get a potential defendant to pay up. Three weeks after a statutory demand letter is sent where an apparent debt for £750 or more exists, a winding up petition can be issued against a company which has not paid (the actual financial wellbeing of the payer is irrelevant as long as they have not paid). Whenever an apparent debt is in dispute this can be a powerful tool to unsettle a defendant.

The context - validity of appointment of administrators

The appointment of administrators under a charge prevents a company’s directors from exercising any management powers without the administrator’s consent.
However, the charge must be enforceable at the time of the administrators’ appointment. What happens if the directors dispute that the charge was enforceable? Are they prevented from controlling the company to reject the appointment.

The background

Following insolvency, creditors and the (now insolvent) company can claim back losses from directors who breached their duties prior to the business breaking down. But it is not just formal directors – it is any individuals who actually control the company and have made themselves ‘shadow directors’ by doing so. In this way, creditors can recoup funds to meet the company’s debts from the individual directors who caused the loss of such funds.

Even someone castaway on a tropical island (say Curacao) will have heard of the Young divorce case which has been played out in the international press. The financial hearing starts today and is expected to last for 4 weeks. In one corner is Scot Young who was worth £400m in 2006 but says that his finances took a sharp downturn and led to his bankruptcy in 2010. In the other corner is his estranged wife who has been trying for many years to uncover a true picture of her husband’s financial circumstances.