The recent judgment of Mrs Justice Proudman in Plaza BV –v- The Law Debenture Trust Corporation1 illustrates and extends a line of authorities in which the English courts have sought to narrow the scope of the mandatory application of Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation 44/2001. These cases are a reaction to the broad interpretation of the applicability and effect of Article 2 set out in the ECJ's decision in Owusu –v- Jackson2 , and attempt to confine the influence of that decision.
The UK Supreme Court has handed down an important 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. The judgment was handed down yesterday.
Background & Court of Appeal
In the present fi nancial climate, customers are increasingly asking for business critical software or other assets to be transferred to the customer should the supplier become insolvent, for the legitimate reason that the customer needs security of supply. Two recent Court of Appeal cases remind us that customers who outsource to and contract with potentially vulnerable service providers need to take account of the “anti-deprivation principle” when doing this.
On 2 May 2007 the House of Lords ruled that the mere appointment of a receiver was not enough for a company to recover damages for business contracts that were allegedly lost as a result of that appointment.
Background to the Restructuring Plan
The UK has introduced the Restructuring Plan; a new, flexible court supervised restructuring tool. The Restructuring Plan draws upon features of the existing Companies Act 2006 scheme of arrangement procedure (which remains available) but includes features which are new to the UK but similar to those under U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
On 28 March 2020 the Business Secretary announced further new far-reaching measures to help businesses combat the financial impact of COVID-19.
In a welcome intervention, the Business Secretary declared it was the government’s intention to suspend wrongful trading provisions and to introduce a moratorium for businesses undergoing a restructuring process. Both measures are intended to assist companies to trade through financial distress caused by the loss of business due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is generally the case (though not always!) that courts are reluctant to enforce monetary award adjudication decisions in favour of companies in liquidation (CILs). This is because of the uncertainty surrounding the CIL’s ability to repay those sums should it later transpire it was not entitled to the award.
On 17 June 2016, the First-tier Tribunal (in Farnborough Airport Properties Ltd v HMRC2) held that the appointment of a receiver over a (would-be surrendering) group company meant that “arrangements” were in place for the company to no longer be under the same “control” as would-be claimant group companies.
The published judgment in Abbey Forwarding[1] will not make for comfortable reading for HMRC. Having instigated the winding up of a profitable business, which led to the dismissal of 23 employees, and accused innocent directors of fraud, HMRC then withdrew all assessments made against the company and attempted to avoid undertakings it had given to the court when seeking the original winding up order.
Those thinking that the trials and tribulations of the recession may have passed them by and that, if all else failed, at least the pension was safe, may have to think again following two recent court decisions in which pensions came under attack from creditors and trustees in bankruptcy.
The vexed question of whether a future right to receive a pension can be attached to satisfy a judgment, or can be claimed by a trustee in bankruptcy, has long since troubled the courts.