The importance of correct drafting of security documents (Plant and another v Vision Games 1 Ltd and others)

The importance of correct drafting of security documents (Plant and another v Vision Games 1 Ltd and others)

Who has security rights over tax credits paid to a company which subsequently enters into insolvency proceedings? Andrew Ayres QC and James Kinman, barristers at Maitland Chambers, London, discuss their recent case of Plant and another v Vision Games 1 Ltd and others.

Plant and another v Vision Games 1 Ltd and others [2018] EWHC 108 (Ch), [2018] All ER (D) 151 (Jan)

What are the practical implications of this case?

This case serves as a salutary reminder to practitioners that security documents must be drafted so as to be compatible with the transactional documentation to which they relate, and that the security arrangements provided for must, so far as they can, be actually put into practice.

Attempting to rely upon generic security documentation, or provisions for arrangements which are not then actually put into practice, can lead to results which—at least from a lender’s perspective—are unwelcome, and it may not be possible to avoid those results merely by reference to what the lender perceives as the commercial sense of the arrangements, or extraneous concepts such as equitable proprietary interests.

What was the background?

This case involved the insolvency of Relentless Software Ltd, a developer of video games.

In order to fund the development of its games, the company obtained finance from Vision Games 1 Ltd (the funder). The terms on which the finance was provided were set out in three development and sales agreements (DSAs), each one of which related to a different game.

Under the terms of the DSAs, the actual development of the games was to be carried out by a subsidiary of the company called Relentless Vision 1 Ltd (RVL). The company would provide the employees and expertise which RVL required, while the funder would advance money into a ‘production account’ held by RVL on each occasion that pre-defined ‘milestones’ were reached. RVL would then apply this money towards its and the company’s costs of the development. Importantly, any money received by the company by way of tax credits were also to be paid into the production account. By contrast, receipts from the exploitation of the games were to be paid into an ‘exploitation account’, also held by RVL.

No withdrawals were to be made from the exploitation account save with the written consent of the funder, and all monies within the exploitation account were to be paid to the funder until it had been repaid the finance which it had advanced, together with an agreed return.

Subscription Form

Related Articles:
Latest Articles:

Already a subscriber? Login
RELX (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis, and our LexisNexis Legal & Professional group companies will contact you to confirm your email address. You can manage your communication preferences via our Preference Centre. You can learn more about how we handle your personal data and your rights by reviewing our  Privacy Policy.

Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.

Read full article

Already a subscriber? Login

About the author:

Meet Neil:

1. Banking and finance lawyer with particular experience in asset finance

2. Likes Wales, wine, sport and anything else that means he doesn’t have the time to have to write personal information about himself

3. Thinks the law is a far broader topic than any of his family and friends who do not work in law

Neil specialises in banking and asset finance transactions with a particular emphasis in finance for shipping, aviation and renewable energy, as well as providing corporate transactional support. He trained and qualified at TLT LLP and spent a further four years working as a finance solicitor, acting for borrowers and lenders before joining the Asset Finance team at DLA Piper (UK) LLP.