Over the last 12 months, global markets have been amazingly resilient, indeed even buoyant, aided in large part by governments around Europe and the world providing seemingly unlimited funding and extensive financial stabilisation measures, such as quantitative easing.
This, coupled with protective legislation for companies to prevent insolvency filings and to ensure continued trading – for example, moratoriums, relaxations on insolvency filing obligations and restrictions on creditor actions – has given businesses significant breathing space and prevented widespread failures.
…there is nothing to say that directors who genuinely believe that the clouds will roll away and the sunshine of prosperity will shine upon them again and disperse the fog of their depression are not entitled to incur credit to help them to get over the bad time”
The words of Buckley J, Re White & Osmond (Parkstone) Ltd (unreported)
Very interesting judgment yesterday from Zacaroli J in "gategroup Guarantee Limited" (with a small g) that Part 26A plans are insolvency proceedings and therefore fall outside European civil and commercial jurisdictional rules. Pre-Brexit case law tells us that Part 26 schemes are probably not insolvency proceedings and are therefore capable of falling within those rules. Zacaroli J found that the "financial difficulties" threshold conditions to Part 26A plans (which do not exist for Part 26 schemes) made a significant difference.
At the end of last year judgment was handed down by Pat Treacy J in a matter notable for the unusual attitudes of a director towards the company’s director’s loan account. By the time the company entered into administration, the loan account was overdrawn to the tune of £1.35m, with the director having withdrawn funds to (amongst other things) finance the purchase and maintenance of a personal yacht.
In measures that came into effect from 1 December 2020, the Finance Act 2020 dictates that for certain debts, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) will now rank much further up the chain of creditors when a company enters administration or liquidation. This is a radical change to a process that had previously ranked HMRC as an unsecured creditor for nearly 20 years.
What was the old system?
Introduction
In R (on the application of KBR, Inc) (Appellant) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Respondent) [2021] UKSC 21 the Supreme Court held that the Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") may not compel a foreign company to produce documents held overseas under section 2(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 ("CJA 1987").
The case of Re NMUL Realisations Limited (in administration) [2021] EWHC 94 (Ch) follows in the footsteps of the case of Re Tokenhouse VB Limited [2020] EWHC 3171 (Ch),where the Court considered whether a charge-holder’s failure to give notice of their intention to appoint administrators invalidates the appointment (see our previous blog here).
For those of you hoping this article would be about chess or the wonderful Netflix drama of the same name, you will be sadly disappointed. If you came here for insolvency news then keep reading. This article will focus on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Custom’s (HMRC’s) “gambit” to gain an advantage over other creditors through the return of the “crown preference” from 1 December 2020. This article explores what HMRC’s status as a secondary preferential creditor means and its implications for insolvency practitioners and others going forward.
PJSC Uralkali v Rowley & Anor [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) is about the sale of the Force India F1 racing team, owned and operated by Force India Formula One Team Limited (the “Company”).
The Force India F1 team was more successful on the track than it was financially and by the summer of 2018, the Company was in a precarious financial position. The Company went into administration and appointed joint administrators on 27 July 2018 (the “Joint Administrators”).
Summary