It is little wonder why Andrew Tinkler’s removal from the Stobart Group (and subsequent court case) attracted so much media attention:
A recent English Court of Appeal judgment has resolved some doubts regarding the use of adjudication procedures in insolvency.
Last year the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that a company in liquidation cannot refer a dispute to adjudication in circumstances where there are claims by a company in liquidation and cross claims by the other party1.
In a consultation issued by the UK tax authority, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), on 26 February 2019, a change in the order of asset distribution in the insolvency of UK companies has been proposed. The amendments would newly favour certain taxes collected and held by an insolvent entity ahead of certain secured and unsecured creditors and would come into force in April 2020.
A cross-practice team led by partner Tom Astle has advised a syndicate of c.75 lenders under a bespoke €1.06bn super priority loan to distressed Croatian food producing and retail giant Agrokor (the “SPFA“) on an English law scheme of arrangement proposed by the company. The scheme of arrangement was approved by 97.92% in number of the lenders under the SPFA, representing 99.99% in value of scheme claims, at the creditors’ meeting earlier this week, and was sanctioned by Mr Justice Fancourt this morning.
Crown prerogative dates back to the Magna Carta entitling the monarch to absolute priority for revenue related debt. Come 6 April 2020 will we really be heading back to feudal times and 1215?
The proposal to reinstate Crown preference was announced as part of the Autumn Budget last year and came as a surprise to many. The expected consultation paper published by HMRC this week seeks the views of individuals, shareholders, directors, lenders, companies and insolvency practitioners on the proposal to reinstate Crown preference in part.
On 6 February 2019 the Court of Appeal gave its decision dismissing Sequana’s appeal against a decision of the High Court in 2016, that payment of a dividend by a company can be susceptible to challenge under section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86).
Background
In high stakes restructurings, directors can be under significant pressure from different parts of the capital structure to take (or refrain from taking) certain actions. It is critical that the board understands whether it owes duties to members or creditors (or both). For such an important issue, the law has previously been remarkably unclear.
On 1 March 2019 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in First City Monument Bank Plc v Zumax Nigeria Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 294, a decision which will provide welcome clarity to those engaged in international banking and the financing of international trade.
SUMMARY
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales (“CA”) made a significant ruling on two matters affecting the powers and duties of directors of English companies.