In the Matter of System Building Services Group Limited (In Liquidation) [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch), the court confirmed that a director’s fiduciary duties continued after the appointment of an administrator or liquidator and that the subsequent purchase from the administrator/liquidator of a property at an undervalue was in breach of those duties. As a result, the property was declared to be held by the director on a constructive trust for the company.

The ferocious expansion of the shared office sector in recent years has caused a great deal of speculation about the long term viability of shared office accommodation as a business model.

In this insight, we look at how a shared office provider's insolvency might impact on its occupiers, depending on the insolvency process which is followed.

The shared office accommodation business model

This article was first published in The Commercial Litigation Journal.

The Chancellor of the High Court has published guidance on how the courts will deal with the e-filing of a “notice of appointment of an administrator” when the court is closed.

The creditor, Tall Trade Limited, claimed the first two quarterly repayments due under a loan facility agreement made in 2019 concluded with the debtor, Capital WW Investment Limited. The loan was for €17 million over a two year term. Both companies were incorporated in the BVI.

Re System Building Services Group Limited [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch)

Summary

A recent High Court ruling has considered the character and extent of directors’ duties in the context of insolvency.

In System Building Services, Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Barber (“ICCJ Barber”) considered, amongst other things, the nature of a director’s duties to a company and whether those duties survive the company’s entry into an insolvency process.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In Re C A & T Developments Ltd, the court found that the appointment of administrators had been motivated by an improper purpose and the purpose of the administration could not be achieved. In an application under Paragraph 81 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), the court therefore ordered the administration to end and the company to be wound up compulsorily.

Currently, when a UK airline enters insolvency, its operations cease, aeroplanes are grounded and passengers are stranded – in part due to the heavy industry regulation and, in part, because of complex aeroplane financing arrangements. Any operational continuity enabling the repatriation of passengers would be a loss-making activity likely to deplete the amount of money available to the company’s creditors; a result that would be contrary to the aim of UK insolvency processes in general. This starkly contrasts with insolvent U.S. airlines, all of which have been in U.S.

This judgment is an important one. It concerned an application by the joint liquidators of Comet (formerly joint administrators) for directions permitting them not to carry out any further investigation into the validity of the fixed and floating charge held by a single purpose vehicle (“HAL”) that had been granted by Comet under a year before it collapsed into administration. The joint liquidators also sought a direction that they be permitted to transfer a further tranche of funds to HAL that had been realised in the administration.

Are the regimes of construction adjudication and insolvency incompatible? Recent Court of Appeal authority suggested that they are, but in Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (In Liquidation) v 12-18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd [2019] EWHC (TCC), Adam Constable QC sitting as a district judge in the high court has clarified the exceptional circumstances in which a company in liquidation can enforce an adjudicator’s decision in its favour.