Re Agriplant Services Ltd

Last updated

Re Agriplant Services Ltd
CourtHigh Court
Citation(s)[1997] 2 BCLC 598
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingJonathan Parker J
Keywords
Voidable preference

Re Agriplant Services Ltd [1997] 2 BCLC 598 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable preferences under s 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986. It is an example of what will be considered an unlawful and voidable preference when a company is close to insolvency.

Contents

Facts

Agriplant leased some equipment from Closed Asset Finance Ltd (CAF) for its agricultural and earth moving business. It owed £20,000 to CAF, and the debt was guaranteed by Agriplant's majority shareholder, Mr George Sagar. An accountant advised no payments should be made to any creditors, but when Agriplant got more money on one of its contracts, it paid off CAF. It went into liquidation shortly after. One of the liquidators was the accountant. The liquidators sought an order that Mr Sagar or CAF should repay the £20,000 sum. Mr Sagar argued he had no desire to put himself or CAF in a better position before liquidation began.

Judgment

Jonathan Parker J ordered repayment by Closed Asset Finance Ltd of the £20,000. It was indisputable that the payment to CAF improved CAF's position and Mr Sagar's position (because he was going to be liable under the guarantee). It was therefore a voidable preference under the Insolvency Act 1986, s.239(4). Mr Sagar had his own liability in mind, so he wanted to reduce Agriplant's debt and his own personal liability.

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Liquidation</span> Winding-up of a company

    Liquidation is the process in accounting by which a company is brought to an end in Canada, United Kingdom, United States, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and many other countries. The assets and property of the company are redistributed. Liquidation is also sometimes referred to as winding-up or dissolution, although dissolution technically refers to the last stage of liquidation. The process of liquidation also arises when customs, an authority or agency in a country responsible for collecting and safeguarding customs duties, determines the final computation or ascertainment of the duties or drawback accruing on an entry.

    A number of legal systems make provision for companies trading while insolvent to be unlawful in certain circumstances, and provide for directors to become personally liable for a company's debts if they have acted improperly. In most legal systems, the liability in respect of unlawful transactions only extends for a certain period of time prior to the company going into liquidation.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Insolvency</span> State of being unable to pay ones debts

    In accounting, insolvency is the state of being unable to pay the debts, by a person or company (debtor), at maturity; those in a state of insolvency are said to be insolvent. There are two forms: cash-flow insolvency and balance-sheet insolvency.

    Wrongful trading is a type of civil wrong found in UK insolvency law, under Section 214 Insolvency Act 1986. It was introduced to enable contributions to be obtained for the benefit of creditors from those responsible for mismanagement of the insolvent company. Under Australian insolvency law the equivalent concept is called "insolvent trading".

    An unfair preference is a legal term arising in bankruptcy law where a person or company transfers assets or pays a debt to a creditor shortly before going into bankruptcy, that payment or transfer can be set aside on the application of the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy as an unfair preference or simply a preference.

    An undervalue transaction is a transaction entered into by a company who subsequently goes into bankruptcy which the court orders be set aside, usually upon the application of a liquidator for the benefit of the debtor's creditors. This can occur where the transaction was seriously disadvantageous to the company and the company was insolvent or in immediate risk of becoming insolvent.

    In law, a liquidator is the officer appointed when a company goes into winding-up or liquidation who has responsibility for collecting in all of the assets under such circumstances of the company and settling all claims against the company before putting the company into dissolution. Liquidator is a person officially appointed to 'liquidate' a company or firm. Their duty is to ascertain and settle the liabilities of a company or a firm. If there are any surplus, then those are distributed to the contributories.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom insolvency law</span> Law in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

    United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the Companies Act 2006. "Insolvency" means being unable to pay debts. Since the Cork Report of 1982, the modern policy of UK insolvency law has been to attempt to rescue a company that is in difficulty, to minimise losses and fairly distribute the burdens between the community, employees, creditors and other stakeholders that result from enterprise failure. If a company cannot be saved it is "liquidated", so that the assets are sold off to repay creditors according to their priority. The main sources of law include the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 1986, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XII, the Insolvency Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.

    Re a Company [1990] BCC 526 is a UK insolvency law case, on the offence of fraudulent trading under s.213 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

    <i>Re Produce Marketing Consortium Ltd (No 2)</i>

    Re Produce Marketing Consortium Ltd [1989] 5 BCC 569 was the first UK company law or UK insolvency law case under the wrongful trading provision of s 214 Insolvency Act 1986.

    <i>Re MC Bacon Ltd</i> (No 1)

    Re MC Bacon Ltd [1990] BCLC 324 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning transactions at an undervalue and voidable preferences.

    <i>Re Parkes Garage (Swadlincote) Ltd</i>

    Re Parkes Garage (Swadlincote) Ltd [1929] 1 Ch 139 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning a voidable floating charge for past value.

    Re Purpoint Ltd [1991] BCLC 491 is a UK insolvency law and company law case, concerning misfeasance and wrongful trading.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Cayman Islands company law</span> National economic law

    Cayman Islands company law is primarily codified in the Companies Law and the Limited Liability Companies Law, 2016, and to a lesser extent in the Securities and Investment Business Law. The Cayman Islands is a leading offshore financial centre, and financial services form a significant part of the economy of the Cayman Islands. Accordingly company law forms a much more prominent part of the law of the Cayman Islands than might otherwise be expected.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Cayman Islands bankruptcy law</span>

    Cayman Islands bankruptcy law is principally codified in five statutes and statutory instruments:

    <i>Coutts & Co v Stock</i>

    Coutts & Co v Stock[1999] EWHC 191 (Ch), [2000] 1 WLR 906 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable transactions.

    Australian insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is principally governed by the Corporations Act 2001. Under Australian law, the term insolvency is usually used with reference to companies, and bankruptcy is used in relation to individuals. Insolvency law in Australia tries to seek an equitable balance between the competing interests of debtors, creditors and the wider community when debtors are unable to meet their financial obligations. The aim of the legislative provisions is to provide:

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Hong Kong insolvency law</span> Financial regulation in Hong Kong

    Hong Kong insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is now primarily governed by the Companies Ordinance and the Companies Rules. Prior to 2012 Cap 32 was called the Companies Ordinance, but when the Companies Ordinance came into force in 2014, most of the provisions of Cap 32 were repealed except for the provisions relating to insolvency, which were retained and the statute was renamed to reflect its new principal focus.

    <i>Allied Concrete Ltd v Meltzer</i>

    Allied Concrete Ltd v Meltzer was a landmark Supreme Court decision on the defence to a court order allowing a liquidator to claw back value from an insolvent transaction. The matter in contention concerned whether repaying an old debt satisfied the words "gave value" in section 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that "gave value" includes value given when a debt was initially incurred by the now insolvent debtor company.

    <i>Re MC Bacon Ltd</i> (No 2)

    Re MC Bacon Ltd [1991] Ch 127 is a UK insolvency law case relating specifically to the recovery the legal costs of the liquidator in relation to an application to set aside a floating charge as an unfair preference.