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 Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has given a preliminary ruling on when a security holder has "possession or…control" of financial collateral for the purposes of Directive 2002/47 on financial collateral arrangements. From an English law perspective, this is particularly relevant for anyone considering whether a floating charge over financial collateral qualifies as a security financial collateral arrangement (or SFCA).

Background – UK implementation and interpretation

Nigel Barnett talks about bribes and other proprietary rights in insolvencies.

Introduction

For over 150 years, it has been a principle of English law that if an agent takes a bribe or a secret commission, he is liable to account to his principal for the amount received. However, there has been conflicting authority and academic debate as to whether the principal merely has a personal claim against the agent or whether he can assert a proprietary claim to the monies received and any profits made therefrom.

 The Government has decided to create a Special Administration Regime (SAR) for systemically important payment and securities settlement systems. It is concerned that, were one of these market infrastructures to become insolvent, the administrator or liquidator would have to work towards maximising value for creditors, rather than keeping critical payment and settlement services running. The Bank of England would have the power to apply to court for an order declaring the start of SAR proceedings. Ensuring continuity of service would be among the special administrator’s objectives.

Background

The United Kingdom Supreme Court recently decided the appeal in the important case In the Matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) (In Administration) and In the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 [2012] UK (the Case).

In summary, the Case is about which claims can be treated as claims for client money. This turns on interpreting the rules of the UK’s Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS) in chapter 7 of CASS. These FSA rules stem from the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID).

Where lenders are lending to and taking security from companies that may become subject to special administration regimes, the value of the security may be affected and enforcement options restricted. More companies are subject to these procedures than you might think. So, how do you identify whether your borrower is subject to one of these regimes? Should you place a lower value on your security? What are your enforcement rights? Might your borrower become affected after grant of the security?

Special administration regimes

FSA made five sets of new rules at its March board meeting:

A business you are buying or selling, if reorganised for sale, may be less valuable if you do not avoid tax pitfalls. This note highlights the most common pitfalls, including those related to an insolvency. You can avoid most with planning.

Reorganisations

Many businesses will now be considering transactions involving corporate reorganisations. They might want to take advantage of market conditions to buy or be considering the sale of business units to refocus strategy. Or they might become involved in an insolvency or reconstruction.

On 26 June 2020, The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Act) became law, providing the UK (but with separate provisions for Northern Ireland) with temporary and permanent changes to insolvency law aimed at helping businesses manage the economic implications of COVID-19.

Of particular interest to the construction industry will be one of the new Act’s permanent measures relating to continuing supply.

The Court of Appeal has considered whether interim dividends paid to a shareholder at a time when the company did not have sufficient distributable reserves, making the payments unlawful, could later be reclassified as salary payments.

Facts