 |
| Re Shoe Lace Ltd | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court |
| Full case name | Re Shoe Lace Ltd or Power v Sharp Investments Ltd |
| Citation(s) | [1994] 1 BCLC 111 |
| Keywords | |
| Voidable preference, undervalue transaction | |
Re Shoe Lace Ltd [1994] 1 BCLC 111 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable transactions.
The liquidator of Shoe Lace Ltd sought a declaration that a debenture given to Sharp Investments Ltd, which owned 80 per cent of Shoe Lace and was part of a group controlled by the alleged shadow director Mr Mahtani who lived in Ratingen, was invalid under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 245 because it was created after payments to the company. Shoe Lace had shoe shops in Lancashire and Yorkshire but was hopelessly insolvent by April 1990. It gave a debenture to Sharp Investments Ltd secured with a floating charge over the whole undertaking on 24 July. Sharp gave it £300,000 on 3 April, £50,000 in May and £11,500 in July. The Insolvency Act 1986 section 245(2)(a) states that a floating charge is voidable if the value given for the charge does not come after or ‘at the same time’ as the charge was created. It was questioned what the precise time limit of this was.
Hoffmann J held that the debenture was voidable, because no businessman would hold this to have been at the same time.
There is no authority upon the meaning of “at the same time as” in sec. 245. The degree of contemporaneity which such words connote must depend upon the context. It might not be unreasonable to say that two species of dinosaur became extinct “at the same time” when millions of years separates their last known representatives. On the other hand, one would not say that the winner of a 100 metres race crossed the tape at the same time as the runner who came second, even though they were separated by less than a tenth of a second. In sec. 245, the context is commercial and regulatory. For example, it forms part of a scheme which includes the requirement that particulars of a floating charge must be delivered to the registrar of companies within 21 days of its creation. The question, I think, is whether a businessman having knowledge of the kind of time limits imposed by the Insolvency and Companies Acts and using ordinary language would say that the payments had been made at the same time as the execution of the debenture.
Ralph Gibson LJ, Nolan LJ and Sir Christopher Slade upheld Hoffmann J that a delay of any substantial length (more than a coffee break) would be fatal to the exception.
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 floating charge is a security interest over a fund of changing assets of a company or other legal person. Unlike a fixed charge, which is created over ascertained and definite property, a floating charge is created over property of an ambulatory and shifting nature, such as receivables and stock.
Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd[1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 is a landmark UK company law case. The effect of the House of Lords' unanimous ruling was to uphold firmly the doctrine of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862, so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company's shareholders for payment of outstanding debts.
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.
Re Spectrum Plus Ltd[2005] UKHL 41 was a UK company law decision of House of Lords that settled a number of outstanding legal issues relating to floating charges and recharacterisation risk under the English common law. However, the House of Lords also discussed the power of the court to make rulings as to the law that were "prospective only" to mitigate potential harshness when issuing a ruling that was different from what the law had previously been understood to be.
Re D’Jan of London Ltd [1994] 1 BCLC 561 is a leading English company law case, concerning a director's duty of care and skill, whose main precedent is now codified under s 174 of the Companies Act 2006. The case was decided under the older Companies Act 1985.
Hutton v West Cork Railway Co (1883) 23 Ch D 654 is a UK company law case, which concerns the limits of a director's discretion to spend company funds for the benefit of non-shareholders. It was decided in relation to employees in the context of a company's insolvency proceedings.
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 MC Bacon Ltd [1990] BCLC 324 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning transactions at an undervalue and voidable preferences.
Re Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd [1970] Ch 465 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the priority of creditors in a company winding up. It was held that fees for liquidation came in priority to preferential claims and floating charges. This was overturned by the House of Lords in Buchler v Talbot, but reinstated by Parliament through an amendment to the Insolvency Act 1986 s 176ZA.
Agnew v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, more commonly referred to as Re Brumark Investments Ltd[2001] UKPC 28 is a decision of the Privy Council relating to New Zealand and UK insolvency law, concerning the taking of a security interest over a company's assets, the proper characterisation of a floating charge, and the priority of creditors in a company winding-up.
Illingworth v Houldsworth [1904] AC 355 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the taking of a security interest over a company's assets with a floating charge. In the Court of Appeal Romer LJ held that a key to a floating charge, as opposed to a fixed charge was that the company can carry on its business with assets subject to the charge.
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 Yeovil Glove Co Ltd [1965] Ch 148 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable floating charges for past value. It holds that a floating charge can harden when it secures a debt in an overdraft account, when the bank keeps the facility open as a company takes money out and puts money in.
Re Anglo-Austrian Printing & Publishing Union [1895] 2 Ch 891 is a UK insolvency law and company law case, concerning recovery of assets under a misfeasance action. It was held that because the claims were vested in the company before the company went into liquidation, the proceeds of such a claim would be caught by a floating charge where the floating charge was expressed to include any after-acquired property.
Re New Bullas Trading Ltd [1994] 1 BCLC 485 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the definition of a floating charge. It held, somewhat controversially, that it was possible to separate a book debt from its proceeds, and that it was possible to create a fixed charge over the book debt but only a floating charge over the proceeds. At the time the decision attracted a great deal of academic commentary, much of it hostile.
Buchler v Talbot[2004] UKHL 9 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the priority of claims in a liquidation. Under English law at the time the expenses of liquidation took priority over the preferred creditors, and the preferred creditors took priority over the claims of the holder of a floating charge. However, a crystallised floating charge theoretically took priority over the liquidation expenses. Accordingly the courts had to try and reconcile the apparent triangular conflict between priorities.
Re Brightlife Ltd [1987] 1 Ch 200 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the conversion of a floating charge into a fixed charge ("crystallisation"). It held that an automatic crystallisation clause was part of the parties’ freedom of contract. It could not be limited by court created public policy exceptions. The significance of the case was largely outpaced by the Insolvency Act 1986 section 251, which said a floating charge was one that was created as a floating charge.
Re Panama, New Zealand, and Australian Royal Mail Co (1870) 5 Ch App 318 is generally accepted as the first decision under English law to recognise a floating charge.
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.