VLM Holdings Limited –v- Ravensworth Digital Services Limited [2013] EWHC 228 (Ch)

Précis – In February 2013, the High Court ruled that businesses are permitted to use software under a sub-licence if the head licensee’s business is terminated or becomes insolvent. This ruling, however, is dependent upon the “scope of authority” given to the sub-licensor by the head licensor.

What?

In Hamilton v Hamilton [2013] EWCA CIV13 the Court of Appeal was asked to decide on whether it was appropriate to vary the terms of a Consent Order which provided for payment of a lump sum by a former wife to her former husband.

The Order required the wife to pay her husband £450,000 in 5 payments.

The wife paid a total of £240,000 by which time her business had been placed in administration and she was unable to make any further payments.

The UK Supreme Court judgment in the conjoined cases of Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in Liquidation) and another v AE Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46, which provides vital clarification on the effect of foreign insolvency judgments on the UK courts.

Background & Court of Appeal

Although only a few weeks old, 2013 has already seen HMV, Jessops and Blockbuster enter administration, joining last year's failures, which included Comet, Clinton Cards and Peacocks.  Given the number of premises these companies occupy across the UK, landlords of retail premises will inevitably be affected.

A High Court judgment by Mr. Justice Richards handed down on January 29 has confirmed that a client’s open positions on trades, made with a firm regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) that subsequently enters into an administration or liquidation, should be valued by reference to the market value of the trades at the time of the firm’s failure rather than at the date the positions are closed out.

The Court of Appeal has given guidance on when the duty of directors to have regard to the interest of creditors arises. This is an important point, as the general statutory duty of a director to promote the success of the company for the benefit of the company's members is expressly subject to the rules on creditors' interests. The court's decision also considers whether a dividend payment can be challenged as a transaction at an undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Facts

The U.K. Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in the joined cases of Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in liquidation) and another v A E Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46. (24 October 2012)

Key points:

Earlier last month, the UK High Court held that administrators appointed under the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (UK) are not officers analogous to liquidators.

The ruling arose from an application for directions made by investment bank administrators (IBAs) on the issue of whether their appointment was analogous to the appointment of a liquidator. Had the Court held in the affirmative, their appointment would have constituted an event of default by the company in administration under the terms of a global master repurchase agreement.

In the recent English decision of Neumans LLP v Andronikou & Others, a company had unsuccessfully opposed a winding up petition and the question for the Court was whether the solicitors' costs in doing so were an expense of the administration. In considering this issue, the Court noted that there would have to be "some special reason, connected with the administration" to make the administrators pay fees in full as an expense when statutory provisions did not allow for solicitors to have priority over other creditors and those entitled to claim expenses.

The High Court of England and Wales has recently grappled with a lacuna in United Kingdom bankruptcy law, namely how the expenses of a trustee in bankruptcy should be dealt with where the bankruptcy order from which he derives his title is successfully overturned on an appeal of which he was not notified? The Court ultimately found that it was within its inherent jurisdiction to hold the bankrupt liable to pay the trustee's reasonable expenses. However the case highlights the gap in the United Kingdom's bankruptcy laws in failing to provide adequate guidelines in this scenario.