In June 2007 we reported on the decision in Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v PRG Powerhouse Limited. Although the case has given rise to a great deal of debate, until now there has been no subsequent reported case in which the court has had to consider whether and how a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) might fairly effect a compromise of a landlord's claim against a guarantor of its tenant.

Last week the High Court of England and Wales revoked a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) promoted by retailer Miss Sixty in a damning judgment that called into question the conduct of the practitioners involved. The case of Mourant & Co Trustees Limited v Sixty UK Limited (in administration) [2010] could end so-called guarantee stripping – where the CVA purports to discharge guarantees given by a third party – and provide powerful ammunition to landlords seeking to negotiate future CVAs with tenant companies.

R (on the application of Global Knafaim Leasing Ltd and another) v. Civil Aviation Authority and another

Summary and implications

The Government is proposing to give struggling companies a protected moratorium against enforcement action, to help them to negotiate a restructuring deal with their creditors.

The moratorium would be available to all companies which are preparing a CVA or scheme of arrangement. At present, a moratorium is only available to small companies* who are proposing a CVA.

Re Johnson Machine and Tool Co 6

The company was the subject of a “pre-pack” administration, whereby it was placed into administration and its assets immediately transferred to a new company controlled by the directors and owners of the existing company.

Why has the Financial Support Direction (FSD) been issued?

We first reported on The Trustee in Bankruptcy of Louise St John Poulton v Ministry of Justice in the October 2009 banking update. In short, the Court Service had failed to give notice of a bankruptcy petition to the Chief Land Registrar. As a result, no pending action had been registered against the name of the debtor and no notice had been registered against the debtor's property.

There is something positively Dickensian when looking at the anti-deprivation rule (the "rule") and images come up of scribes working in dark and dismal rooms scratching their quills by dim candle light. Indeed, the rule dates back to the nineteenth century and many lawyers would be hard-pressed to explain it even if they are able to grasp the contradictions and fine distinctions thrown up by the old cases. In essence, the rule provides that a contractual provision is void if it provides for the transfer of an asset from the owner to a third party upon the insolvency of the owner.

In a recent opinion (Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co. SAL and others [2009] UKHL 43) handed down in the final days of the House of Lords, their Lordships clarified a point which may be of some significance for successful claimants seeking to enforce a Court order against corporate defendants.  

In a decision handed down just before the end of term, auditors have won an important House of Lords ruling limiting their liability in cases where a “one man” company is used as a vehicle for fraud. The Law Lords dismissed by a majority of three to two a negligence claim brought against an audit firm for failing to detect a massive fraud at Stone & Rolls, a trading company that fell in the late 1990s – holding that the liquidators could not bring a claim for damages when the company itself was responsible for the fraud.

Background