Directors cannot avoid unlawful distribution claims by asserting that dividends should be retroactively re-categorised as remuneration for services they have provided to the company, the Court of Appeal has confirmed in Global Corporate v Hale [2018] EWCA Civ 2618

The court confirmed that the legality of a payment to directors must be tested at the time when it is made. Any "subsequent realisation that the distributions should not have been made" will not cure an unlawful distribution.

Since the introduction of The Companies Act 2014, directors have relied on the Summary Approval Procedure as a means of sanctioning certain activities that are otherwise prohibited.

While it has been a welcome development in simplifying financial transactions, directors need to be mindful of the appropriate steps to be taken so they are not leaving themselves open to committing an offence or being personally liable for the debts of a company.

Background

2018 has seen a wave of company voluntary arrangements ("CVAs") hit the market, with high profile companies such as House of Fraser, Carpetright, New Look and Homebase (to name a few) all making use of this restructuring tool. This briefing note explains how a CVA works, provides an overview of current "market" themes, and makes some predictions on the future of CVAs.

EVOLUTION OF THE CVA

The Chancellor announced in his budget that the Crown is to be re-instated as a preferential creditor in insolvency, reversing the changes brought in by The Enterprise Act 2002.

A discharged Bankrupt had intentionally misled the Court as to his COMI being in England and Wales in order to obtain a Bankruptcy Order. Four years after the making of the Bankruptcy Order, the Court annulled it on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the Order in the first place.

Since the Construction Act came into force over 20 years ago, it has been a central tenet of the construction industry that a party can start an adjudication at any time, on any dispute (subject to questions of crystallisation or the dispute having already been decided).

However, it is interesting that two recent Court decisions seem to have called this into question - Michael Lonsdale v Bresco and Grove v S&T.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Doherty -v- Fannigan Holdings Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1615 considers the issue of whether a failure to pay for shares, as provided for under an agreement between the parties is a debt on which a statutory demand can be based.

The joint liquidators of Peak Hotels & Resorts Limited ("Peak") brought an unsuccessful appeal that a legal charge held over funds paid into court ("Funds") was incapable of enforcement. The court dismissed the appeal on the basis that Peak did retain a proprietary interest over the funds.

Yesterday, draft Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 were published by the Government. In the event of a 'no deal' Brexit, the statutory instrument would amend UK legislation and EU legislation retained on exit day relating to insolvency.

Pensions New (PN) has often had cause to ask himself what he knows.  A similar sort of question was frequently posed by the French essayist, Michel de Montaigne.  Montaigne lived between 1533 and 1592 and he answered this question over the course of a period of time during which he produced several volumes of great essays.  In those volumes, Montaigne covered many subjects however he never covered the subject of the occupational defined benefit pension scheme.  So far PN knows, this is the first article ever written about Montaigne’s relationshi