During contract negotiations parties usually agree what law and which courts will determine any disputes arising from that contract. This brings certainty for the parties. However that certainty can vanish if one party is a foreign registered company and becomes insolvent – the other party may suddenly become exposed to unexpected foreign insolvency law. At this point, the drafting of a jurisdiction clause can be worth millions.
This is the situation in the recent case of Global Maritime Investments Cyprus Limited v O.W. Supply & Trading A/S [2015] EWHC 2690 (Comm).
It is very much the nature of the job that appointed Office Holders are required to make difficult and challenging decisions on each and every case they take. On some occasions those decisions are well received – on others, not so well. Creditors affected by those decisions can take comfort that the Office Holder is experienced in making those difficult decisions, is an Officer of the Court, has their own licence to protect and, fundamentally, has a duty to treat all creditors fairly.
The English High Court has, in one of the few successful cases on wrongful trading, clarified when directors ought to know that there is no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation and where the burden of proof lies in such cases.
Background
It has been an interesting 12 months in the world of insolvency and restructuring.
Carrington Wire Defined Benefit Pension Scheme was set up for the benefit of the employees of Carrington Wire Limited; a Yorkshire based company engaged in the sale and supply of steel and wire products. Carrington, which started to wind down its business at the end of 2009, was at that time owned by Severstal, a Russian based international steel company. The scheme’s liabilities were guaranteed by Severstal’s parent company.
This week will hopefully see the end of a long running battle between Britain’s biggest landlords and the restructuring profession. On 12 February, the Court of Appeal will start to hear an appeal relating to the administration of Game Station (Jervis v Pillar Denton). It will consider whether the administrators should pay rent for the properties which they occupied during the administration as an administration expense, so ensuring the landlords receive their rent in priority to payments made to other creditors.
Background
The past eighteen months have seen a marked increase in the use of the Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”) by retailers to reduce their lease liabilities and win the release of onerous parent company guarantees, with several high street names going through the process. Although this practice received cautious support from landlords, real concern continues to be voiced over the practice of “guarantee stripping”.
On 1 April 2008 The Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008 (Regulations) came into force. The Regulations extend the exclusion from the obligation to pay rates in respect of unoccupied non-domestic rates to those premises where the owner (or lessee, being a person entitled to possession) is a company in administration pursuant to Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 or is subject to an administration order under the former administration provisions.
In the case of Caversham Finance Limited (in administration) [2022] EWHC 789, the court considered whether errors in a notice to creditors seeking consent to extend an administration made the extension invalid. This case is important as it shows the court’s approach to omission of prescribed information in notices to creditors.
The recent case of Re A Company [2021] EWHC 2289 (Ch) outlines how the coronavirus test for winding up petitions will be applied by the Courts.