On 25 May 2016, the Insolvency Service published a consultation paper aimed at reforming various aspects of the UK's corporate insolvency regime. It has now collected responses from various interested parties including Dentons. Some proposals focus on the issue of rescue finance, and how to make sure businesses have access to suitable finance to continue to trade out of financial difficulty or achieve a suitable restructuring.

In the recent judgment of Gorbunova v The Estate of Boris Berezovsky (deceased) and others¹ the High Court has provided useful guidance as to when summary judgment is appropriate in deciding whether a trust was established.

The Facts

This was an appeal by liquidators to the Court of Appeal from a decision refusing to grant an order that payments made to the respondent directors totalling nearly £450,000 were preferences.

By the time of the appeal, it was accepted that the payments were made within the relevant time and with the requisite intention to prefer.

The Pension Protection Fund (“PPF”) has updated its approach to employer restructuring guidance and its general guidance for restructuring and insolvency professionals. These documents set out certain criteria that should be met when making proposals to the PPF in respect of a sponsoring employer suffering an insolvency event.

1. The PPF Approach to Employer Restructuring:

The High Court has recently demonstrated its right to exercise discretion as to whether an administration order should be made in relation to a company. In Rowntree Ventures v Oak Property Partners Limited, even though the companies were unable to pay their debts and where the statutory purpose of administration was likely to be achieved, the Court exercised its commercial judgment in determining that it was premature to make an administration order.

Background

The Supreme Court has held that a principal was entitled to recover payments collected by its agent on its behalf following the agent's insolvency: Bailey and another (Respondents) v Angove's PTY Limited (Appellant) [2016] UKSC 47.

In a recent case, BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others, the High Court was asked to consider the circumstances in which the directors of a company are required to consider the interests of creditors and the extent to which the payment of a dividend by a company can be susceptible to challenge under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Lovers of Shakespeare will no doubt recognise the aforesaid phrase. As this is Shakespeare’s 400th birthday year, I thought it apt to borrow one of his most famous phrases.

The use of Shakespeare in a legal article may appear to many readers misplaced. However, the expression does, in my view, capture a serious dilemma facing creditors when trying to invoke what appears to be a cost-effective and quick way of recovering money.

Focus on the AB InBev and SABMiller merger

In the recent case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others [2016] EWHC 1686, the High Court has held for the first time that a dividend can be challenged as a transaction entered into at an undervalue within the meaning of section 423(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).

The Facts

The facts of the case are long and complex but for present purposes the pertinent facts are as follows.

Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (now Windward Prospects Limited) (“AWA”) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (“SSA”).