The proposal to reinstate Crown preference in insolvency has met resistance from all angles; the insolvency profession, turnaround experts, accountants, lawyers and funders. But despite HMRC’s bold statement in its consultation paper that the re-introduction of Crown preference will have little impact on funders, it is clear following a discussion with lenders that it may well have a far wider impact on existing and new business, business rescue and the economy in general than HMRC believes.

With the gradual opening of energy supply markets allowing new energy providers to challenge the established providers and bring increased competition to the market, the last two decades have seen an increase in smaller energy providers entering the market and sharing a growing customer base. But what happens to the customers when an energy provider becomes insolvent?

The case of Davey v Money and Anor (2018) EWHC 766 (Ch) should serve as a gentle warning to secured creditors to be aware of the level of their involvement in the administration of a customer.

Background

Angel House Development Limited (“AHDL“), a property development company, borrowed £16 million from Dunbar Assets Plc (“Dunbar“) in order to fund the purchase and redevelopment of a property, Angel House, in Tower Hamlets. Dunbar took security for the loan(s) in the form of a debenture.

HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) has issued a consultation entitled “Tax Abuse and Insolvency: A Discussion Document” on how it proposes to confront those who misuse insolvency law as a means of avoiding or evading their tax liabilities.

A recent decision of the High Court (Goel and another v Grant and another [2017] EWHC 2688 (Ch)) has provided a useful reminder that care must be taken when administrators enter into pre-contract negotiations and the risk of inadvertently entering into a binding contract before terms are finalised. It also deals with the risks of disposing of assets, even those that are difficult to value, without due process.

The Facts

An out-of-hours office appointment of an administrator, although not unusual, is not a regular occurrence in the world of insolvency. It is however, exactly what happened at 4am on Monday 2 October, as Britain’s longest surviving airline brand ‘Monarch’ entered administration. The collapse of the airline comes as a result of mounting cost pressures in an increasingly competitive market and is the third European airline insolvency in 2017, following Air Berlin and Alitalia.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Saw (SW) 2010 Ltd and another v Wilson and others (as joint administrators of Property Edge Lettings Ltd) is the first case to address the effect of automatic crystallisation of an earlier floating charge upon a later floating charge.

The recent case ofCrumper v Candey Ltd [2017] EWCH 1511 (Ch) delivered an updated analysis of the operation of section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“s245”). Although the insolvency proceedings (and much of the litigation before and after the insolvency commenced) originated in the British Virgin Islands, they were recognised in England and Wales under the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006.

When reviewing a security for costs application under CPR 25.12, the courts are faced with the challenge of striking a balance between an impecunious claimant’s access to justice and the possibility of a successful defendant being unable to recover their costs. This is because the general rule in relation to costs under CPR 44.2 is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the successful party.

新疆某上市公司（下称“公司”）因信息披露违规被中国证监会行政处罚，引发众多股民对公司提起证券虚假陈述民事赔偿诉讼（下称“本案”），金杜代理公司应诉。近期，新疆某中级法院就本案作出一审判决，驳回股民全部诉讼请求。

本案系典型的证券虚假陈述民事赔偿诉讼。该类案件因涉及股民众多、索赔金额高、专业性强，往往引发资本市场高度关注。从以往的案例来看，上市公司被行政处罚后引发的股民诉讼，法院判决驳回原告全部诉讼请求的案例极为罕见。本案中，金杜基于以往处理类似案件的丰富经验和专业把握，针对本案的案情特点，有针对性地提出了上市公司不应承担股民损失的答辩意见，最终得到法院支持。这是金杜代理上市公司成功应对股民提起证券虚假陈述民事赔偿诉讼的又一经典案例。

案情简介

2014年7月，中国证监会作出《行政处罚决定书》，认定公司连续多年虚构购销业务，虚增业务收入与成本，虚增或者虚减利润，导致公司2006年至2011年年报存在信息披露违规问题。

截止目前，本案共有70余名股民对公司提起证券虚假陈述民事赔偿诉讼，此外，还有批量股民以律师函的方式向公司进行索赔。

本案主要争议焦点及金杜整体应对思路