In an unreported case (Re Active Wear Limited (in Administration)), the High Court has ruled that an out-of-court administration appointment, instigated by a sole director of a company with unmodified model articles, was valid notwithstanding the earlier decision of Deputy Judge Farnhill (also in the High Court) in the case Hashmi v Lorimer-Wing (also known as Re Fore Fitness Investments Holdings Ltd) [2022] EWHC 191 (Ch) (02 February 2022).
In an unreported case (Re Active Wear Limited (in Administration)), the High Court has ruled that an out-of-court administration appointment, instigated by a sole director of a company with unmodified model articles, was valid notwithstanding the earlier decision of Deputy Judge Farnhill (also in the High Court) in the case Hashmi v Lorimer-Wing (also known as Re Fore Fitness Investments Holdings Ltd) [2022] EWHC 191 (Ch) (02 February 2022).
Re Fore Fitness had caused concern throughout the legal market as it essentially held that a company which had adopted unmodified Model Articles of Association (for private companies limited by shares) would be unable to operate if it only had a sole director. Below we outline the background to both cases and highlight the impact on sole directors of companies with unmodified model articles and the potential wider ramifications.
Re Fore Fitness began as an unfair prejudice petition by the shareholders of that company under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA2006). A question arose about whether the company had validly served notice of a counterclaim. At the time the counterclaim was served, the company had a sole director and had adopted a constitution based on the Model Articles (with some modifications). Four provisions of the Model Articles were relevant to this decision:
In Re Fore Fitness, the High Court surprisingly agreed with the petitioner’s view that the quorum provisions in the articles required the company to have at least two directors and, as a result, the sole director had acted without authority. The counterclaim was invalid and was struck out.
The judge said that “a provision in the articles requiring there to be at least two directors to constitute a quorum logically is a requirement that the company in question have two directors in order to manage its affairs”. The company had argued that the Model Articles must permit a company to operate with only one director, as the CA2006 specifically permits sole director companies. This view was echoed by The Department of Business, Industry and Skills in non-statutory guidance which stated that the “Model Articles do not provide for minimum number of directors.”
The Re Fore Fitness decision went against the widely adopted approach taken in practice since the implementation of the CA2006 and its associated Model Articles – namely that Model Article 11(2) and 11(3) form part of the “general rule”, so when a company has a sole director, they do not apply. Instead, Model Article 7(2) allows the sole director to take all decisions. Conversely, the judge found that although the CA2006 envisages sole director companies, the Model Articles could not be used without modifications in this situation.
The Re Fore Fitness decision has created much uncertainty in the market and debate over how to react and protect the actions (both past and present) of sole directors. Whilst certain practical steps can be taken, there is no perfect solution and nothing that allows a sole director to act swiftly in an insolvent scenario.
In Re Active Wear, Deputy Judge Martin QC, approached the construction of the company’s articles (following Cosmetic Warriors Ltd & Anor v Gerrie) in accordance with the ordinary principles that would apply to the interpretation of any written contract. Applying those principles (and taking note that the Model Articles are organised into Parts and subdivided into sections) it was held that, since the provisions relating to quorum are contained in an identifiable Part (comprising articles 7-16), they are specifically disapplied by Article 7(2) when there is only one director and no other provision requiring more than one director, as is the case of the Model Articles. On this basis, the unambiguous effect of Article 7 is that a sole director may take their own decisions regarding the conduct of the company. Accordingly, the director’s decision to appoint administrators was valid.
Deputy Judge Martin QC attributed much of the earlier finding in Re Fore Fitness to the existence of a bespoke article (Article 16) and commented openly on the reasoning in paragraphs 22 and 23 of that judgment. In doing so, it was noted that: “it would, in my judgment, be wrong to read the unamended Model Articles, existence of the requirement in Article 11(2), as having the effect of ruling out the operation of Article 7(2). It seems to me that to treat the Articles of having that effect would be to deprive Article 7(2) of any practical meaning.”
This is a welcome judgment and deviation from the view in Re Fore Fitness. For sole directors of companies with unmodified model articles, it should afford an opportunity to distinguish their actions from the facts of Re Fore Fitness and preserve their decision-making powers. Beyond that, it also recognises and formally endorses the widely adopted market approach to the construction and interpretation of the model articles and their application to sole director companies.
Whilst unreported, this decision remains binding and will have the same authority as any other High Court decision. Practitioners will have to consider the competing authority of this case and Re Fore Fitness but perhaps, over time, Re Fore Fitness will increasingly find itself confined to its facts and limited to situations where a bespoke modification to the Model Articles might be considered to justify a different interpretation.
The original published source can be viewed at the 'Insolvency Insider UK'.
In this session, we examined the legal framework around grant funded collaborations and discussed the key risks to be aware of, including IP ownership and compliance with grant terms.
National law firm Browne Jacobson has advised long standing retail client, Wilko on the sale and leaseback of its Nottinghamshire distribution centre in Worksop to logistics specialist DHL for £48m.
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the BTI v Sequana appeal and reviewed the existence, content and engagement of the so-called ‘creditor duty’; being the point at which the interest of creditors is said to intrude upon the decision-making of directors of companies in financial distress.
It was reported in May 2022 that the BMW-owned manufacturer had been forced to put a temporary stop on the production of all manual transmission vehicles due to the global semi-conductor shortage and the war in Ukraine. Mini stated that the move was made in order to "ensure production stability".
Browne Jacobson has bolstered its commercial practice in the UK with the appointment of commercial contracts and international trade specialist, Emma Roake, into its City-based London team.
Browne Jacobson’s national private equity (PE) lawyers have advised leading mid-market PE investment firm, Palatine Private Equity (Palatine) on its exit from CTS Group, the fast-growing specialist in testing, inspection and geoengineering consulting services to the construction and infrastructure sectors.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate finance lawyers have advised leading mid-market private equity firm, LDC and management on the sale of specialist managed IT services provider, Littlefish to Bowmark Capital.
The Digital Markets Act (the “DMA”) joins the dots between competition law and data protection law and actively targets data-driven platforms. It is also a comprehensive regulation to take note of, with familiar GDPR-style fines tied to turnover.
Browne Jacobson’s private equity (PE) dealmakers have advised Palatine Private Equity backed CTS Group (Construction Testing Solutions Limited) on its acquisition of In Situ Site Investigation, a market leader in Cone Penetration Testing and Pressuremeter techniques and ground investigation services.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate finance lawyers have advised leading private equity investor, Rcapital Partners LLP (Rcapital) on its majority stake acquisition of managing general agents (MGAs), UK General Insurance Ltd (UKG) and Precision Partnership Limited (PPL) alongside Montague Investment Group LLP who are taking a minority stake.
In an unreported case (Re Active Wear Limited (in Administration)), the High Court has ruled that an out-of-court administration appointment, instigated by a sole director of a company with unmodified model articles, was valid notwithstanding the earlier decision of Deputy Judge Farnhill (also in the High Court) in the case Hashmi v Lorimer-Wing (also known as Re Fore Fitness Investments Holdings Ltd) [2022] EWHC 191 (Ch) (02 February 2022).
Rolls-Royce has shortlisted six locations for its first factory for small nuclear power stations. We look at the impact on regions & local businesses
There are clearly challenging macro-economic factors at play but at Browne Jacobson we continue to see good levels of transactional activity with certain sectors being particularly buoyant: healthcare, financial services, energy & infrastructure and tech.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns. The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate lawyers have successfully advised the shareholders of specialist chemical manufacturer, Amity International on its acquisition by Belimed AG, a subsidiary of Metall Zug AG.
In the recent case of Dwyer (UK Franchising) Limited v Fredbar Limited and ano’r [2022] EWCA Civ 889, the Court of Appeal considered the reasonableness of restrictive covenants in a franchise agreement.
Browne Jacobson’s Manchester based corporate lawyers have advised tech enabled shipping and logistics service provider, World Options on its majority buyout by Italian headquartered MBE Worldwide (“MBE”) for an undisclosed sum.
Browne Jacobson’s specialist cleantech lawyers have advised AIM market listed Clean Power Hydrogen Group Limited (CPH2) on its global licence agreement with GHFG Ltd.
The Court of Appeal overturned the “fire and re-hire” injunction, finding that there was nothing in the express contractual provisions preventing Tesco from giving the notice to terminate employment in the usual way.
We advised equity investor, Business Growth Fund on its exit from mobile data SIMs & business communications specialist Jola Cloud Solutions.
Browne Jacobson have successfully advised the partners of leading accountancy firm Cooper Parry on the agreement for Dutch based firm, Waterland Private Equity to invest in the business.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has released a report setting out the impact of new and changing regulations arising from the pandemic on small businesses across the UK.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate tech lawyers have advised specialist bicycle insurer Laka on an investment from Porsche Ventures (a venture capital division of Porsche AG), bringing its series A investment round to a total of $13.5m.
Browne Jacobson have successfully advised leading mid-market private equity firm LDC on its investment into global programmatic advertising company, Blis. The transaction will support Blis’ international growth strategy.
Browne Jacobson has successfully advised Nottingham based developer Charterpoint on the sale of a 1.2 acre care home development site in Thurnby (Leicestershire) to care home operator Cinnamon.
There is currently no legislation requiring employees within the UK to have the COVID-19 vaccine. However, a recent Acas survey found that approximately 22% of employers intend to require their new staff to have the COVID-19 vaccination, and 21% would require their existing staff to be vaccinated too.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate finance team is celebrating after winning the prestigious “Corporate Law Firm of the Year’ award at this year’s East Midlands Dealmakers Awards.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate dealmakers have advised Coniston Capital on its management buyout (MBO) of bespoke kitchen design manufacturers Harvey Jones for an undisclosed sum.
Browne Jacobson’s banking & finance lawyers have advised HSBC UK Bank plc on the financed management buy-out of Derby-based bicycle supplier and distributor, Moore Large for an undisclosed sum.
The government has recently published the Corporate Transparency White Paper – it follows previous consultations on improving the quality and value of financial information on the UK companies register, powers of the registrar and implementation of the ban on corporate directors, which were published in 2020.
Browne Jacobson have successfully advised Triangle Fire Systems, its shareholders and management team on a £9m investment by the Business Growth Fund (BGF).
