In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.

The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.

Facts

Centenary Homes Limited (C) was a property development company which acquired two blocks of flats: one in Enfield and the other in Bloomsbury. The Bank of Scotland (BOS) extended secured finance to C for the development of the two properties.

C defaulted on its repayment obligations in 2012 and fixed charge receivers were appointed in March, when the balance outstanding was approximately £4.4 million.

The receivers were able to sell the Enfield flats in July 2012, for £3,250,000.

Videology Inc and it's UK subsidiary, Videology Limited (the "Company") applied to the English court for their US Chapter 11 proceedings to be recognised as "foreign main proceedings" under Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law of Cross-Border Insolvency (the "Model Law") and for an administration moratorium under the Article 21 of the Model Law. The Videology group had secured an agreement with an interested party to buy its business and assets.

Decision

Key points

• The Court of Appeal confirmed that there is a complete statutory code for the payment of interest.

• Statutory interest represents compensation for dividends paid after the administration, and does not depend on any right to interest under the underlying claim.

• Regard can be had, however, to the rate at which interest would have been paid to the creditor after the administration.

The facts

The English High Court has rejected a creditor's application to bring a moratorium to an end following the monitors' decision not to terminate the moratorium.

Background

A monitor must terminate the moratorium if they 'think' that the company is unable to pay any pre-moratorium debts for which the company does not have a 'payment holiday'. Surprisingly, debts arising under an agreement involving 'financial services' are excluded from the payment holiday.

Decision

The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (the Regulations) came into effect on 4 May 2021. While the Regulations will provide residential tenants with additional procedural protection regarding rent arrears, they will be an unwelcome additional hurdle to landlords.

What do the Regulations do?

The UK's withdrawal from the European Union has created uncertainty around insolvency law. Let's look at how things have changed in the wake of Brexit, and what that means for current and future German insolvency proceedings.

What is the state of play post-transition period?

On 30 July 2020, the UK Insolvency Service published its quarterly insolvency statistics. Notably:

The UK government announced on 26 August 2018 that it will legislate to update the restructuring and insolvency systems, with the aim of the UK retaining the gold standard regime. The reforms are a response to international developments (with countries such as Spain and the Netherlands recently introducing updated insolvency systems) and some domestic corporate collapses which have put the UK system under stress.

The reforms are wide-ranging. Headline changes will include:

Key points

• Where the underlying liability on which a bankruptcy order is made is subsequently set aside, the correct remedy is rescission under s.375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986.

• Annulment under s.282(1)(a) is the appropriate remedy when, on grounds existing at the time of making the bankruptcy order, the order ought not to have been made.

The facts