A recent decision of the Commercial Sheriff Court at Perth in the case of Priority Construction UK Limited v Advanced Material Processing Limited, reported at [2024] SC PER 48, has confirmed the position in relation to the proper basis for liquidation petitions to be brought against debtor companies. The moral of this story is that liquidation petitions should not be used to try to recover a validly disputed debt - something that all creditors and practitioners should be alert to.
The facts
The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) has published guidance (the Guidance) following the publication of the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.2) Regulations 2024 (the Regulations) on 14 November 2024. OFSI is the body with regulatory oversight of the financial sanctions regime and is responsible for its implementation and enforcement within the UK.
In a recent decision, the High Court refused to grant the Financial Times access to the whole of the Secretary of State's affirmation in support of directors' disqualification proceedings against Alexander Greensill, pursuant to either CPR 5.4C or the court's inherent jurisdiction.
On 20 November 2024, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case of Kireeva v Bedzhamov1. The court ruled that a Russian bankruptcy trustee has no claim over a bankrupt's property in Belgrave Square on the basis that the court has no jurisdiction to assist a foreign bankruptcy trustee in respect of immovable property located in England and Wales and that such property is unaffected by a foreign bankruptcy order. This decision reaffirms the immovables rule, which (subject to exceptions) protects immovable property such as land from foreign bankruptcy claims.
The UK construction sector is experiencing an increasing rate of insolvency, with recent data revealing that construction firms accounted for 17.4% of all insolvencies in England and Wales in August 2024. Over the past year, the total number of construction firms becoming insolvent has increased by 2.1%.
Introduction
In this case the Court applied traditional constructive trust principles to disputed facts in order to determine whether a specific property came within the estate of a bankrupt. It will be of interest to practitioners advising in the area of challenged transfers in the context of insolvency.
The Trustees in the bankruptcy of Shaun Collins made an application pursuant to s.339 Insolvency Act 1986, to challenge a disposition of land. The land in question was a flat and the disposition was a 2021 transfer of a flat in London.
In Harrington v Purdue Pharma,1 the United States Supreme Court held that so-called “non-consensual third-party releases” were not permitted in restructuring plans proposed under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. A “third-party release” arises where creditors are asked to vote on a restructuring plan or scheme which not only proposes to release the debtor company (i.e. the company that has petitioned for bankruptcy or is proposing the scheme) from all liability but to also release other third parties from any associated liability.
The Times reported yesterday on the continued promotion of an “insolvency avoidance” scheme, despite efforts by the Insolvency Service to close it down. The scheme claims to offer directors of distressed companies a means of avoiding formal liquidation – with the associated scrutiny of their actions and risk of personal liability.
Section 216 Insolvency Act 1986 provides that a person who has been a director of a company at any time in the 12 months before it goes into insolvent liquidation is prohibited for five years from being a director of, or directly or indirectly being concerned in or taking part in, the promotion, formation or management of a company with the same or similar name to the liquidated company (a “prohibited name”). Section 217 imposes personal liability on a director for debts incurred by a company which acts in breach of s 216.