Shareholders who fail to intervene to stem the losses in a company they control may be held personally liable for the company’s debts if it is subsequently liquidated, according to the Supreme Court.

Under Hungarian law, a shareholder’s liability (in a limited liability company) is usually limited to their capital contribution. The corporate ‘veil’ can only be pierced (making the shareholder personally liable for the company’s debts) in special circumstances.

On Monday, the High Court handed down its decision in (1) Lazari Properties 2 Limited, (2) The Trafford Centre Limited, (3) LS Bracknell Limited and 10 Others and (4) Fort Kinnaird Nominee Limited and 20 Others v (1) New Look Retailers Limited, (2) Daniel Francis Butters and (3) Robert Scott Fishman [2021] EWHC 1209 (Ch) considering the various grounds of challenge raised by the applicants in relation to the New Look CVA. Mr Justice Zacaroli rejected each of the grounds of challenge leaving the New Look CVA intact.

Temporary provisions restricting action to wind up companies and reverse some winding up orders already made are a step closer following presentation of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (“Bill”) to the House of Commons on 20 May. The Bill will now work its way through both Houses before imminently becoming law. The Bill includes a number of substantial corporate insolvency changes, but also temporary provisions restricting action to wind up companies in light of Covid-19, on which we focus here.

A Court of Appeal decision last week has broadly upheld previous TCC guidance as to the ability of companies in liquidation or those subject to CVAs to commence and enforce adjudication proceedings against their creditors. Although theoretically possible, adjudication proceedings commenced by companies in liquidation are now liable to be restrained by a court injunction.  Adjudications by companies subject to a CVA are more likely to be appropriate and, depending on the circumstances, may be enforced without a stay of execution.

Insolvency set-off: a recap

September 2016 CMS_LawTax_Negative_28-100.eps Enforcing Security over Real Estate and Shares across Europe 2 | Enforcing Security over Real Estate and Shares across Europe 3 Introduction 4 Albania 5 Austria 6 Belgium 7 Bulgaria 8 Czech Republic 9 England and Wales 10 France 11 Germany 12 Hungary 13 Italy 14 Luxembourg 15 Montenegro 16 Netherlands 17 Poland 18 Portugal 19 Romania 20 Russia 21 Scotland 22 Serbia 23 Slovakia 24 Slovenia 25 Spain 26 Turkey 27 Ukraine 28 Contacts Contents 19 practice and sector groups working across offices Ranked 2nd most global law firm in the Am Law 2015 Glob

Since changes were made to the Bankruptcy Act 1985 (the “Bankruptcy Act”) in 2008 it has been possible for sheriffs to continue sequestration petitions for up to a maximum of 42 days.  This was a change from the previous position whereby sequestration petitions could only be dealt with by the grant of the award or dismissal, and was brought in in recognition of the common practice adopted by many sheriffs.

Share purchase agreements often include indemnities or covenants to pay designed to protect the buyer for a period after completion where some unquantifiable liability is anticipated that will impact on the value of the company being acquired. This is particularly so in the case of unpaid tax.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill was published on 20 May 2020 and went through an accelerated parliamentary process, receiving Royal Assent on 25 June 2020 (with the provisions coming into force on 26 June 2020).

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) introduces a mixture of permanent and temporary “debtor friendly” measures to restructuring and insolvency law in England and Wales and in Scotland, jurisdictions which have historically been viewed as being “creditor friendly”.

In accordance with the resolution adopted by the seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court dated 20 November 2019, case file no. III CZP 3/19, it is not admissible to stipulate liquidated damages in the case of rescinding an agreement due to the failure to perform an obligation of a pecuniary nature.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled today that the Pension Protection Fund regime does not satisfy European law requirements. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on the PPF, and could have wider knock-on effects for many occupational pension schemes.

Background to the case