In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

Background to the Case

The Part 26A Restructuring Plan (“RP”) is a relatively new addition to the English insolvency regime; despite this, the flexibility it provides to both distressed companies and their creditors has made it an important and attractive option. The recent administration of GoodBox Co Labs Limited (“GoodBox”) only further highlights this flexibility, providing ground-breaking precedent for creditor‑led RPs and the necessity of company consent.

In Grant & Ors v FR Acquisitions Corporation (Europe) Ltd & Anor (Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe)) [2022] EWHC 2532 (Ch), the English High Court ruled on an application for directions (the “Application”) made by the administrators (the “Administrators”) of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) relating to the construction and effect of certain bankruptcy-related events of default (“Events of Default”) specified under the ISDA Master Agreements (as defined below), specifically:

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (“SC”) has recently handed down a decision in the case of BTI v Sequana, dealing with the powers and duties of company directors. The appeal was expected to be of considerable importance.

This alert is especially relevant to companies, and directors of companies, in financial distress, as well as creditors and insolvency practitioners.

Key Takeaways

On July 7, 2022, the UK Insolvency Service, an executive agency of government responsible for a variety of roles in administering the UK insolvency regime, published a consultation on the UK’s proposed adoption of two UNCITRAL Model Laws on insolvency, inviting responses (the “Consultation”).

On 1 August 2022, the English High Court granted the administrators of Petropavlovsk PLC (the “Company”) permission to enter into a sale of its Russian assets to Russian entity UMMC-Invest (the “Proposed Sale”) amidst sanctions concerns.

For background on the Act and the National Security and Investment (NSI) regime, please see our November 2020 Client Alert, August 2021 Client Alert, and

Is the rule in Gibbs justifiable in the context of modern international insolvency laws or is England clinging to an outdated rule simply to keep restructurings here? The rule stems from an 1890 Court of Appeal Case, which holds that only English courts can validate the compromise or discharge of English law governed debt. The rule cuts across the trend of increased cross-border cooperation in insolvency matters – commonly described as the “modified universalist” approach and critics see the rule as a relic of a more Anglo-centric approach to insolvency law.

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues, governments around the world are coordinating and responding with increasingly severe sanctions and export controls on Russian entities, institutions, and individuals. Insolvency practitioners first wonder whether sanctioned entities, or entities connected to sanctioned individuals, can enter into an insolvency procedure and, if so, how does the insolvency practitioner accept an appointment and get paid?

The National Security Investment Act 2021 (the “Act”) came into effect on 4 January 2022 and introduced a new UK investment screening regime focused on national security risks (the “NSI Regime”). It is similar to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) regime. The Act is wide reaching; it provides the UK government with the power to review and intervene in transactions that may pose a UK national security risk due to a transfer of control of sensitive entities or assets.