Categorisation of a charge as fixed or floating will have a significant impact on how assets are dealt with on insolvency and creditor outcomes.

Typical fixed charge assets include land, property, shares, plant and machinery, intellectual property such as copyrights, patents and trademarks and goodwill.

Typical floating charge assets include stock and inventory, trade debtors, cash and currency, movable plant and machinery (such as vehicles), and raw materials and other consumable items used by the business.

The ability of suppliers to terminate contracts when a customer becomes insolvent is to be curtailed by the Government under plans published in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”).

The recent case of Martin v McLaren Construction [2019] EWHC 2059 (Ch) reminds practitioners to make sure that the debt which forms the basis of a statutory demand pursuant to s268(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, is due and payable.

You might assume that a statutory demand under s268(1) is a demand for payment and therefore monies payable under an “on demand” guarantee can be demand by a statutory demand. However, the Court in Martin v McLaren confirmed otherwise.

The Facts

Following our 2016 article, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends are liable to challenge as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).

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.

In the recent case of Cash Generator Limited v Fortune and others [2018] EWHC 674 (Ch), the Court determined that non-compliance with the deemed consent procedure for nominating liquidators did not invalidate their appointment. The case provides a useful summary on the relatively new provisions governing the deemed consent procedure and welcome relief to Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) that a failure to fully comply with such provisions will not necessarily invalidate their appointment.

Brief facts and arguments

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

Remuneration schemes involving Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) have become more prevalent over the last 20 years, often as a way of seeking to remunerate key employees without making pay as you earn or national insurance contributions. Given the developments highlighted below, insolvency practitioners are advised to investigate such schemes in matters coming across their desks to see whether funds can be clawed back for the benefit of creditors.

HM Revenue and Customs’ opinion on EBT schemes

2017年1月07日，在《人民法院报》最新公布的 “2016年度人民法院十大民事行政案件”中，金杜律师事务所代理的江苏舜天船舶股份有限公司（简称“舜天船舶”）破产重整案名列其中。该案不仅是适用最高人民法院和证监会之间会商机制的首个案例，也是上市公司重整同时完成重大资产重组的首个案例，在案件处理的参考性以及对于市场和社会的整体影响方面均意义重大。每年由《人民法院报》编辑部评出的十大案件均为在过去一年中全国各级法院审判的具有重大社会影响力、案情疑难复杂或审判结果有重大突破和借鉴作用的典型案件。

舜天船舶是一家从事船舶和非船舶贸易的国有控股上市公司。受航运及船舶市场持续低迷的影响，自2014年起舜天船舶的经营危机和债务危机开始显现，且日趋严重，渐至资不抵债，面临严峻的退市风险。最终舜天船舶于2016年2月5日被南京市中级人民法院（简称“南京中院”）裁定进入破产重整程序。南京中院通过公开选任方式，经过层层选拔，最终确定金杜为本案管理人，负责开展相关重整工作。