The English Court of Appeal decision in Caterpillar v John Holt & Company, and its analysis of “retention of title” and “no set-off” clauses, will be of interest to commodity traders, compliance officers and legal counsel in industries dealing with energy and natural resources internationally.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the trustees of two occupational defined benefit (DB) schemes can use a particular mechanism, known as a Headway agreement, to maximise the amount of s.75 debt payable by the employers.

In the case of Sarjeant and others v Rigid Group Ltd, both schemes commenced winding up in 2000. No insolvency event had occurred before the winding up in either case. The applicable legislation at the relevant time required the s.75 debt to be calculated on the MFR basis.

Summary

Following the US case of Morning Mist Holdings when a Court of Appeals decided that COMI had to be analysed on the date of the Chapter 15 case petition, we look again at the case of Kemsley where the US bankruptcy court held that COMI had to be analysed on the date of the filing of the UK bankruptcy. We consider whether this could have affected the outcome of the Kemsley case and look at the factors used by the English and US Courts to interpret an individual debtor’s COMI.

Background

A recent decision by the Court of Appeal (CA) in West v Ian Finlay & Associates (a firm) will, in the words of one colleague, “add spice to negotiations”. 

The CA held that a net contribution clause in a professional appointment was effective in limiting liability. The CA held that the clause was both “crystal clear”, noting that the facts of the case did not permit an alternative interpretation, and fair, that is within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. 

The High Court (David Donaldson QC) has held in Enta Technologies Limited v HMRC [2014] EWHC 548 (Ch), that where a winding-up petition was brought by HMRC based on the non-payment of tax raised in assessments and the taxpayer's appeal against those assessments was pending, the winding-up court should refuse to adjudicate on the merits of the appeal and should leave that question to be dealt with by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) ('FTT').

Background

Key point

A winding up petition founded on a tax assessment, which is the subject of an appeal to the Tax Tribunal, should be dismissed or stayed pending the appeal.

The facts

The UK Treasury and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have been drip-feeding the industry rules and practical details of the transfer of consumer credit (CC) regulation to FCA. FCA has now published the final form of its detailed rules in its Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC), with feedback and practical advice. The rules apply from 1 April 2014 with limited grace periods only. It is critical that all firms carrying on credit-related regulated activities know what the changes mean for them.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in the Game Station case has established that administrators should pay rent on a daily basis while they are using the property. This overturns the earlier High Court decisions in the Luminar and Goldacre cases and is in keeping with the recent trend of flexibility and fairness in insolvency situations.

Leasehold property in an administration

Bristol Alliance Nominee No 1 Ltd v Bennett [2013] EWCA Civ 1626; [2013]PLSCS 316 (A/Wear UK Limited)

Background

The case relates to the insolvency of a women’s fashion retailer and their shops in Bristol and Leicester.

The Court of Appeal has decided that rent accruing during a period of administration should be treated as an expense of the administration, irrespective of the date on which it falls due for payment. Administration expenses are paid by administrators in priority to liabilities owed to holders of security.