Introduction

The recent case ofPlant & Plant (administrators of Relentless Software Ltd) v Vision Games 1 Ltd & Ors1 concerns the attempt of a funder of a video games developer to recover the proceeds of a tax credit payment made by HMRC to the developer, pursuant to the security that had been granted by the developer to the funder.

In assessing whether the funder could recover such sums, the High Court was asked to consider various issues, including:

Key Points

• There is a low threshold for the granting of an injunction to prevent the presentation of a winding up petition.

• The challenge against the debt in the statutory demand must be in good faith and have sufficient substance.

The Facts

The Facts

A liquidator applied for permission to amend his claim for fraudulent trading. The claim against the respondents related to purported defrauding of HMRC for non-payment of VAT.

Associate Martin Cox considers the recent High Court decision of Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company Ltd v Dornoch Ltd, in which the court declined to exercise its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPRs”) to order the pre-action disclosure of an insurance policy held by a solvent insured. The article considers the extent to which the outcome in this case is consistent with the overriding objective that courts dispose of cases justly and at proportionate cost.

5 What will happen if a Type A event occurs? If a Type A event occurs without appropriate steps being taken there can be a number of consequences. (i) Impact on relationship with pension scheme trustees Pension schemes have long term liabilities. Sponsoring employers therefore generally expect to have a long term relationship with the trustees of their scheme. That relationship could be damaged if a Type A event occurs and the trustees are not kept informed or if they consider that their concerns about such events have not been addressed.

Investors may, for reasons outside of their control, find themselves with a financially distressed company in their portfolio and possibly in unfamiliar territory. Consequently, it is not just those investors who actively seek out opportunities within the distressed space who should be mindful of the implications of insolvency processes (most commonly administration which can often also be used as part of a wider restructuring).

Media attention has waned from the initial deluge of front-page headlines regarding the Carillion collapse. It would therefore be easy to be ignorant of the ongoing disintegration of the web of Carillion companies beneath Carillion Plc, the ultimate parent company of the Carillion group, which (according to its latest accounts) holds interests in over 350 subsidiaries or joint ventures all over the world.

Court sets out procedure for contempt of court proceedings against bankrupt

For the first time, the Divisional Court has provided guidance on the correct procedure to be used in contempt of court cases falling under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA).

The High Court held that a moratorium in relation to restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan could not be extended in breach of the Gibbs rule, allowing two significant creditors to proceed with their claims in the English Courts.

There are two aspects of wrongful trading and misfeasance that are of interest (i) board directors (and those advising the board) must be aware of the duties that the directors are subject to in performing their role as directors and the liability that attaches to breach of those duties and (ii) companies may be affected by the wrongful trading/misfeasance of customers/suppliers which impacts on trading.