IHL158 p82-84 29/2/08 14:30 Page 82

INSOLVENCY AND CORPORATE Jones Day

Insolvent : DEALING WITH INSOLVENT SUPPLIERS AND OTHER proposed administrators that the order is debtors can be an ongoing headache for many ‘reasonably likely to achieve the purpose of a little more power companies. There are obvious preventative ’. measures, such as including retention of title claims to the unsecured in or demanding cash on delivery, but Under s124(1) of the Act, a (including any there are fewer self-help remedies available to a prospective or contingent creditor) may petition the creditor? creditor once the has said that it is not able court to wind up a company. Section 122(1) provides to pay. It is particularly galling when one suspects the grounds on which a company may be wound up, that the non-paying debtor may be disposing of these include: property or dealing in a dubious manner with its assets and minimising the return for . f) if the company is unable to pay its debts,

Although creditors have always been able to petition g) if the court is of the opinion that it is just and VICTORIA for a company to be wound up or put into equitable that the company should be wound up. FERGUSON administration, if the debt on which the creditor associate, relies is challenged by the debtor company, Evidence of insolvency Jones Day traditionally these petitions have been dismissed In both administration and , the phrase until the dispute is resolved. This can be costly, ‘unable to pay its debts’ is defined by s123 of the Act: time-consuming and frustrating, especially when it is thought that the debtor’s challenge is a fabricated 1) A company is deemed unable to pay its debts – play for time. Even if it has some basis, the challenge can still delay proceedings. A recent judgment has a) if a creditor to whom the company is added a little more strength to a creditor’s hand, indebted in a sum exceeding £750 then due especially when there are antecedent transactions has served on the company… a written that merit investigation by a neutral officeholder. demand requiring the company to pay… and the company has for three weeks thereafter CURRENT POSITION neglected to pay the sum [also known as the Under the (as amended) (the ‘statutory demand’]… or Act), a creditor (including an ) is able to petition for the debtor company to be … wound up or put into administration. The rationale behind the power is one of public interest. A creditor e) if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court can have its interests protected by an independent that the company is unable to pay its debts officeholder appointed to monitor the payments by as they fall due. a debtor company and investigate its prior dealings. More generally, administration or liquidation An alternative definition is provided by s123(2), protects others losing money to the company in the which states that: future, and can prevent its directors from starting new companies that may fail again. ‘A company is also deemed unable to pay its debts if… the value of the company’s assets is less than Secured creditors are more protected, because the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its legislation grants them greater power – and contingent and prospective liabilities.’ accordingly their rights are not addressed in this article. Sub-clause 123(1) is sometimes referred to as the ‘cash-flow’ test and (2) as the ‘balance-sheet’ test. The methods by which an unsecured creditor petitions for administration and liquidation are The failure to pay a debt that is due and not outlined below. disputed has been held to be evidence of insolvency, even though a statutory demand had Applying for administration and liquidation not been served on the company (see Re Taylor’s Under paragraph 12(1) of Schedule B1 to the Act, Industrial Flooring Ltd). one or more creditors may make an application to the court for an administration order. In this case Obstacles for creditors ‘creditor’ may include a contingent or prospective It has been established that a creditor cannot bring a creditor. The creditor also has to include a petition for administration or liquidation as a means statement of its belief that the company is, or is of intimidating the debtor or otherwise using it as an likely to become, unable to pay its debts. The abuse of process (see, for example, Re a Company application needs to include a statement from the (No 2507 of 2003) ). Further discouragement for a

82 The In-House Lawyer March 2008 IHL158 p82-84 insolvency 29/2/08 14:30 Page 83

INSOLVENCY AND CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING Jones Day

creditor wanting to bring a petition or application is In his opinion, it had been established as a matter of the general practice for courts to dismiss or stay any practice, rather than of law, that such applications application where the debt is contested until the were dismissed. dispute is resolved. Again, the rationale is to prevent the creditor using intimidatory tactics or using such Pro-Fit’s lawyers had, unsurprisingly, argued that the petitions as a debt recovery process. The downside application was an abuse of process and an attempt for the creditor is that debtors will sometimes to intimidate. Warren J dismissed this argument on challenge the debts to thwart the petition. Even six grounds, most of which relate to the facts in the where the challenges are found to be spurious, this case. One of the grounds argued by Pro-Fit was that delays the creditor from proceeding with the petition. Hammonds used the application to silence it, knowing that administration would mostly likely A GLIMMER OF HOPE? stifle the negligence claim against Hammonds. The Yet, Hammonds (a firm) v Pro-Fit USA Ltd has judge rejected this approach, asserting that recently offered encouragement to creditors administrators are officers of the court and if a seeking an administration order despite a challenge good case against Hammonds were found, the from the debtor company. administrators would proceed with it, especially as, on the facts of the case, there was some money in The claim the estate to pursue the litigation. Hammonds had advised Pro-Fit on various legal matters and invoiced Pro-Fit accordingly. Pro-Fit TRANSACTION AT AN UNDERVALUE entered into negotiations with Hammonds to All of the above is good news for creditors who compromise the debt, which eventually failed and might otherwise be thwarted from making an the firm indicated that it would have no option but to administration application. But, there are some seek some sort of insolvency process. Hammonds important factual points that encouraged the judge was also concerned about a licence to use certain IP to find for Hammonds, the most crucial of which rights that Pro-Fit had granted to a group company, was that Pro-Fit had granted the IP licence allegedly at an undervalue, during the time that seemingly at an undervalue and an administrator Pro-Fit was negotiating to reschedule its debt to would therefore have the power to investigate the Hammonds. The firm sought the appointment of an transaction. In fact, Warren J said that were it not administrator, in part to investigate this apparent for the granting of the licence, he would not have transaction at an undervalue. made the administration order.

The defence The final twist in this particular tale is that the At the same time as Hammonds suggested that it administration order was granted, but subject to an would commence an insolvency process, Pro-Fit unusual proviso. Warren J gave Pro-Fit the made a complaint about the advice received from opportunity to obtain a surrender of the licence on Hammonds. It subsequently issued a substantial proper terms from the other party. If Pro-Fit claim against Hammonds. Pro-Fit’s counsel argued obtained such a surrender, the administration that as Hammonds’ claim was disputed, it did not application would not be granted. This adds to the have standing as creditor to apply for an judge’s argument that he granted the administration order. administration order despite the disputed debt only to allow for the investigation of the alleged Judgment undervalue transaction. ‘Hammonds (a firm) has Warren J held that a person is a creditor within paragraph 12(1)(c) of Schedule B1 to the Act ‘so long A SHARP DISTINCTION recently offered as he has a good arguable case that debt of Warren J was careful to distinguish between the sufficient amount is owing to him’. Even in the event authorities presented to him that concerned encouragement to of a disputed debt, or a cross-claim, a person falling winding-up petitions and those that were within the definition above may make an application applications for administration. There is common creditors seeking an for an administration order. Warren J went on to say ground that where the debt is either disputed or that it was then within the discretion of the court as the subject of a cross-claim, the creditor may still administration order to whether to make the order, but the court has apply for a winding-up petition or an administration jurisdiction to deal with the administration order. However, the circumstances in which a despite a challenge from application without having to resolve the dispute creditor with an unresolved debt will be granted its about the debt first. He added that this would be winding-up petition are much narrower and will need the debtor company.’ especially true where dismissing the application to be extraordinary, whereas for an administration because it was disputed would deprive the creditor order it will be at the court’s discretion. That said, it of a remedy or otherwise some injustice would arise. is clear on this judgment that creditors whose debt >

March 2008 The In-House Lawyer 83 IHL158 p82-84 insolvency 29/2/08 14:30 Page 84

INSOLVENCY AND CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING Jones Day

is disputed will have to establish strong reasons than not”’. As for being ‘reasonably likely to achieve’ why an administration order should be granted the statutory purpose, Warren J again follows recent before the dispute over their debt is resolved. judgment and concludes that here ‘reasonably likely’ means that ‘there is a real prospect that the purpose Why should there be a difference? It was held (and of the administration will be achieved’. common sense concurs) that there was a sharp distinction between winding-up (leading to CONCLUSION liquidation) and administration. Liquidation brings This case does not create a trump card for any the life of a company to an end and represents an creditor to seek an administration order irrespective end in itself. Administration, on the other hand, is of a challenge from the debtor company, and part of an attempt to rescue the business, if not the neither would that be desirable, but it does open company, and is only ever an interim measure. While the door a little for bona fide creditors. Although an administration order should not be granted subject to certain caveats, and the request for the lightly, a winding-up petition should be treated with alleged undervalue transaction investigation seems even more care. to have been key in the final decision, this case does potentially strengthen a creditor’s hand in dealing INSOLVENCY with insolvent debtors. It provides that a disputed Of course, simply having a debt against a company, debt, or one that is subject to a cross-claim, may even one that is not challenged, is not in itself still permit a creditor to make an application for sufficient to merit an administration order. The court administration, and that such an application, if made will also need to be persuaded that the company is bona fide, does not constitute an abuse of process. insolvent. In his judgment, Warren J considered the Warren J opines that the test for granting an question of the onset of insolvency. His full administration order in such circumstances is lower consideration on the point is beyond the scope of this than for granting a winding-up petition. article, but it is worth briefly reviewing his thoughts. This case is also interesting because it provides The test for insolvency in administration is set out some insight into the factors that a judge considers Re Taylor’s Industrial Flooring Ltd above. The phrases ‘likely to become unable to pay when exercising their discretion to grant an [1990] BCC 44 its debts’ and ‘reasonably likely to achieve [the administration order. Ultimately, although a creditor statutory purpose]’ have been opined on in various whose debt is disputed will have to work hard to Re a Company (No 2507 of 2003) judgments since their introduction into the convince a court of the need to appoint an [2003] EWHC 1484 Insolvency Act in 2003. With respect to the need to administrator before the dispute over the debt is show a company’s inability to pay its debts, Warren J resolved, the option has gained a little extra judicial Hammonds (a firm) v Pro-Fit USA Ltd (following the Re Colt Telecom plc judgment) states support from this judgment. [2007] EWHC 1998 (Ch) that for administration it is not necessary to show present inability to pay debts, merely that it is ‘likely’, By Victoria Ferguson, associate, Jones Day. Re Colt Telecom plc [2002] EWHC 2815 where ‘in this context “likely” means “more probable E-mail: [email protected].

84 The In-House Lawyer March 2008