The Court of Appeal has refused to allow a liquidator of a company that was the vehicle for a VAT fraud to rely on the defence of illegality in defending a claim for breach of duty under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986: Top Brands Ltd and others v Sharma (as former liquidator of Mama Milla Ltd) [2015] EWCA Civ 1140.

The English High Court yesterday sanctioned closure schemes of arrangement for The Orion Insurance Company PLC and The London and Overseas Insurance Company PLC, paving the way for the closure of these complex and long-running insolvencies stemming from 1994.

Speaking today, Hogan Lovells partner Joe Bannister said:

In September 2014 administrators were appointed over Strada restaurants (trading under SSRL Realisations Limited). The restaurant was tenant of a unit in a shopping centre in Bloomsbury.

The Insolvency Service published its quarterly statistics on company insolvency and individual procedures showing:

Introduction

We recently commented on a Scottish case involving dissolution, disclaimer and restoration (read our Law-Now here). There has now been an English case raising the same issues which on the face of it analyses the same provisions of the Companies Act 2006 (UK wide legislation) in a different way to achieve the same result.

The approach of the courts

Key Point

The High Court has given some guidance on the effect of an order to restore a dissolved company to the register where a secured creditor has rights against that company and there has been a disclaimer by the Crown.

Facts

Key Point

Judgment sets out the rationale behind validating three payments made by a Company after the presentation of a winding up petition.

The Facts

This was the third application made by Sahaviriya Steel Industries UK Limited (the “Company”) in connection with payments made that would require validation under s127 Insolvency Act 1986. The payments were necessary to keep part of its business going pending discussions on sale or restructuring.

The Decision

Key Points

• Court considers the ownership of assets situated at premises owned by the bankrupt in the context of limited relevant evidence
• Court emphasises the importance of joining the correct parties to litigation

The Facts

One of the changes introduced by the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (“SBEE”) which came into force on 1 October 2015 was to allow administrators and liquidators the right to assign their rights of action in respect of fraudulent trading claims, wrongful trading claims, transactions at an undervalue, preferences and extortionate credit transactions.

On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.

The result is clear and not a surprising one. The judgments are less clear however. The Court highlighted the difficulties in developing illegality principles of general application for future cases, but then decided now was not the time to try.