One of the many issues which arose from the collapse of Lehman Brothers was whether “flip provisions”, which reverse a swap counterparty’s priority in the order of payment on insolvency, were invalid on the basis that they contravened the anti-deprivation principle.  This is a long-established common law principle which seeks to prevent an insolvent party from arranging its affairs to frustrate the legitimate claims of creditors.

With COVID-19 causing ever increasing financial uncertainty around the globe, we thought it an apt time to provide you with a summary of the various corporate insolvency procedures in the UK applicable to companies facing financial difficulties. Taking each in turn, we will discuss administration, administrative receivership, company voluntary arrangements, schemes of arrangement and liquidation. We will also touch briefly on directors’ duties, rules relating to asset distribution on insolvency and transactions that may be set aside on insolvency or ‘reviewable’ transactions.

In recent years, several foreign companies have used the English law scheme of arrangement as a flexible restructuring method to compromise creditor claims.  The decision of the High Court in the latest of these cases, that of the German company Rodenstock GmbH, clarifies that an English court will accept jurisdiction where the only connection to England is that the company’s finance documents were governed by English law.

Two recent decisions of the UK courts concern UK liquidation and administration of foreign companies

Refusal to Wind-Up Foreign Companies: Re Buccament Bay Limited [2014] EWHC 3130 (Ch)

The High Court of England and Wales may refuse to exercise its discretion to wind up companies incorporated abroad where there would be little likelihood of the petitioners deriving benefit from the winding-up.

The Privy Council has handed down judgment in the claim brought by the liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited ("Fairfield") against a number of redeemed investors, seeking to recover the amounts paid out to them on redemption.

It has been common practice in recent years for the English Courts to make administration orders in respect of Jersey companies with English situs assets, based upon letters of request from the Royal Court of Jersey issued pursuant to section 426 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986.  However, a recent case in the English High Court has challenged the basis upon which these administration orders have historically been made. 

Background

RUBIN V EUROFINANCE SA

New Cap Re v Grant  

[2012] UKSC 46

The recent decision of the English High Court in the case of Fry v Sherry [2012] (In the matter of Ruscoe Ltd (In Liquidation)) serves as a timely reminder of the potential personal liabilities faced by directors should they breach their fiduciary duties. 

Summary of the facts

The facts:

An application had been made by Bank of Scotland Plc and the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland (the Applicants) for a letter of request to be sent by the Royal Court of Jersey to the High Court of England and Wales in respect of four Jersey companies which were ultimate beneficial owners of English real estate.  

Key Issues

The transaction documents (eg ISDA, GMRA or prime brokerage agreements) for derivatives transactions (or other transactions involving netting provisions) are usually governed by English law or New York law. However, there are a number of local law issues which our clients should consider when proposing to enter into such transactions with offshore counterparties, including the following key issues: