The client was involved in a dispute arising from the sale of a hotel business operated through a company owned by the client. The client entered into negotiations with a prospective purchaser for the acquisition of the business, with the transaction being structured primarily as a debt-for-equity swap.
Under the proposed arrangement, the purchaser was to acquire the company and assume responsibility for existing company liabilities rather than paying the full purchase price in cash. As part of the transaction, the client provided a personal guarantee in relation to company borrowing owed to a lender.
The hotel business was sold for a multi-million-pound valuation. Following the transaction, the purchaser took control of the business operations, including the management of the hotel, company banking arrangements and ongoing trading activities.
The client’s position was that the purchaser failed to comply with the obligations agreed as part of the transaction. In particular, the purchaser allegedly failed to assume responsibility for the company’s liabilities, failed to make agreed payments and ceased meaningful communication with the client shortly after taking control of the business.
The client advised that although the transaction had been intended to transfer the company liabilities to the purchaser, the purchaser’s failure to perform his obligations resulted in the client remaining exposed to creditor claims, including claims arising from the personal guarantee.
A lender subsequently sought repayment from the client under the personal guarantee. The amount claimed was approximately £230,000. The client had previously raised concerns with the lender and made a complaint through the appropriate channels but was advised that this did not prevent enforcement of the guarantee.
A further dispute arose with the business broker who had introduced the purchaser. The broker sought payment of commission arising from the transaction. The client disputed liability on the basis that the transaction had not properly completed and those concerns existed regarding the purchaser’s suitability and ability to perform the obligations undertaken.
The client’s position was that the purchaser had obtained control and benefit of the business without properly fulfilling the agreed contractual obligations. The client sought advice regarding potential recovery action against the purchaser, the enforceability of the personal guarantee and the broker’s entitlement to commission.
The principal issue was whether the sale transaction had legally completed and whether the purchaser had become contractually responsible for the company’s liabilities.
Counsel considered whether the purchaser had breached the terms of the sale agreement by failing to perform obligations relating to the assumption of debt and whether the client had grounds to pursue damages or seek other remedies against the purchaser.
A further issue concerned the personal guarantee provided by the client in favour of the lender. Counsel advised that the lender was entitled to rely upon the guarantee unless there was a legal basis to challenge enforcement. The client’s dispute with the purchaser did not automatically remove liability under the guarantee.
Counsel considered whether the client could bring proceedings against the purchaser and potentially seek to recover losses arising from the purchaser’s failure to comply with the transaction terms. This included consideration of whether the client could seek damages, rescission of the transaction or recovery of control of the business.
Counsel also considered the broker’s commission claim. The issue was whether the broker became entitled to commission following the introduction of the purchaser and whether a valid sale had taken place. Counsel considered that the client’s argument regarding inadequate due diligence by the broker may be difficult to establish unless there was a contractual obligation requiring the broker to undertake such checks.
A further issue concerned the financial position of the purchaser and whether any judgment obtained against him would be capable of enforcement. Counsel considered the importance of identifying the purchaser’s assets and obtaining evidence of his financial position before commencing proceedings.
The possibility of insolvency proceedings was also considered. Counsel advised that while administration or liquidation could be options, this could result in assets being realised at a reduced value and should only be considered after assessing recovery options against the purchaser.
Counsel advised that the immediate priority was to establish whether the sale transaction had legally completed and to obtain all relevant contractual documentation, including the sale agreement, completion documents, correspondence between the parties and financial records.
Counsel advised that urgent steps should be taken against the purchaser due to concerns that the purchaser had taken control of the business whilst failing to fulfil his obligations. Counsel considered that litigation pressure may be required to encourage the purchaser to engage and to protect the client’s position.
Counsel advised that potential claims against the purchaser could include breach of contract and damages arising from the failure to assume responsibility for liabilities and comply with the terms of the transaction. Depending on the contractual position, consideration could also be given to whether the transaction could be challenged or unwound.
In relation to the personal guarantee claim, Counsel advised that a response should be provided to the lender maintaining the client’s position while reserving the right to pursue recovery against the purchaser. Counsel advised that the existence of a dispute with the purchaser would not, by itself, prevent the lender from enforcing the guarantee.
Regarding the broker’s commission claim, Counsel advised that the client should maintain the position that completion of the transaction remained disputed and that further investigation was required. Counsel advised that the key issue was whether the broker had introduced a purchaser who ultimately completed a valid transaction, rather than whether the broker had carried out sufficient due diligence.
Counsel advised that the client should obtain the complete file from previous solicitors and review all documentation relating to the transaction before deciding the appropriate litigation strategy.
Counsel further advised that consideration should be given to the client’s objectives, including whether the preferred outcome was recovery of the business, pursuing damages against the purchaser, restructuring the company’s position or considering insolvency options.
Overall, Counsel advised that the client appeared to have potential claims against the purchaser arising from the failure to perform contractual obligations, but urgent action was required to determine the legal status of the transaction and protect the client from further creditor action.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy