Where a company brings a claim against its directors for losses caused by their wrongdoing, the Supreme Court has confirmed the established position that directors cannot escape the claim by arguing that their actions are attributed to the company itself on the basis that the directors were acting as the agents of the company. 

It has been an interesting 12 months in the world of insolvency and restructuring.

In the recent case of HMRC v Munir & Others[1], HMRC successfully applied to the Court for committal of three company officers for contempt of court where an order appointing a provisional liquidator was knowingly breached.

 Background

First publised in CRI

The Court of Appeal in London today gave judgment in the Waterfall I Appeal, a dispute as to the distribution of the estimated £7 billion surplus of assets in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

LBIE entered administration on 15 September 2008 and has now paid its unsecured creditors 100p for every £1 owed.  The Waterfall I Appeal addressed some of the key issues as to who should receive the surplus, which we discuss below.

Currency Conversion Claims

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Jetivia S.A. and Another v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) and Ors should make it easier to pursue claims against rogue directors. The Supreme Court held that, in instances where a company has suffered as a result of the unlawful behaviour of its directors, that behaviour cannot be attributed to the company to disallow the company, or its liquidators, from raising claims against directors for breach of their duties.

Background

A recent English High Court decision has held that prospective Administrators do not need to look behind the directors’ motives in appointing them; they need to look ahead as to what might happen in the administration and consider whether the statutory purpose of the administration can be achieved.

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has issued a guidance note on Insolvency Practitioner remuneration which will apply where the insolvent company has a Defined Benefit Pension Scheme. The guidance note applies to pre and post appointment work.

The Guidance Note can be found here.

The Supreme Court has confirmed in Jetivia v Bilta that where a company brings a claim against its directors for losses caused by their wrongdoing, the directors cannot escape the claim by arguing that their actions are attributed to the company itself.

The Supreme Court also held that s.213 of the Insolvency Act, (which permits the Court to take action against those who  have conducted the business of a company in order to defraud creditors) was not jurisdictionally confined and applied to people and companies resident outside the UK.

The UK’s Pension Protection Fund (PPF) is about to publish new guidelines to reflect their increased focus on the approval of Insolvency Practitioner’s (IPs) fees. The guidelines require IPs to provide more regular detail of accruing and anticipated costs to the PPF when they are appointed over employers where Defined Benefit (Final Salary) pension schemes are significant creditors. More specifically IPs will now be required to provide a more detailed explanation of how their proposed remuneration reflects the value provided to creditors.