Litigation
A referral to the financial list!
In GSO Credit v Barclays Bank plc, the Commercial Court has given guidance on the interpretation of terms in, but not directly defined by, standard Loan Market Association (LMA) documentation which was used in the context of secondary trading of a commitment under a surety bonds facility.
In Sharma v Top Brands Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1140, the Court of Appeal refused to allow a former liquidator of a company (which was a vehicle for VAT fraud) to rely on the illegality defence to avoid liability for a claim brought against her for breach of duty under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).
Background
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.
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.
Several provisions of the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which will come into force on 1 October 2015, are likely to have an impact on directors and their D&O insurers. The first key change is that administrators and liquidators will be able to assign insolvency claims, such as claims for wrongful trading, fraudulent trading and transactions at an undervalue, to third parties.
The UK Insolvency Service has powers to investigate directors' conduct, to commence directors' disqualification proceedings and to enter into disqualification undertakings.
On 22 April 2015 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, which was heard in October last year. In short it decided that: 1) defendant directors cannot raise illegality as a defence to a claim by a company where the directors themselves acted wrongfully; and 2) a claim in fraudulent trading under Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 213)has extra-territorial effect.
Background
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
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.
Introduction
Companies are habitually used as part of a corruption scheme. Such companies often have only a single director, or a small number of directors, and are beneficially owned by the wrong-doers.
Insolvency powers can be effective tools to obtain compensation for victims of fraud or corruption, in the right circumstances.
A state could, for example, apply to Court for a liquidator to be appointed over a company used for corruption.