Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

The High Court has considered whether trustees in bankruptcy are in breach of sanctions by allowing sanctioned Russian creditors to participate in UK insolvency proceedings.

Background

A Russian national, resident in London is subject to bankruptcy proceedings both in Russia and the UK. The bankrupt's creditors include four Russian banks in liquidation in Russia. The UK trustees in bankruptcy applied to the court for directions concerning three main questions:

The liquidator of UKCloud Ltd (the Company) applied to the court for directions as to whether a debenture granted by the Company created a fixed or floating charge over certain internet protocol (IP) addresses. The lender argued that it had a fixed charge.

Fixed or floating?

Background

The administrators of Toogood International Transport and Agricultural Services Ltd (in administration) issued an application seeking an extension of the administration. Their application also asked the court whether consent to a previous administration extension should have been obtained from a secured creditor which had been paid in full before the extension process.

Once a creditor, always a creditor?

The High Court considered whether a limitation period could prevent the presentation of a winding up petition based on a Lebanese judgment debt which was not registered as an English judgment.

Background

The creditor presented a winding up petition based on a judgment debt of $776,907.51 obtained in a Lebanese court in 2010. The debtor applied to restrain presentation of the petition on grounds that the judgment had not been registered nor recognised by the English Courts and the claim was time-barred.

Recognition

The English High Court has considered, on appeal, whether a foreign judgment constitutes a "debt" for the purposes of a bankruptcy petition.

Background

A bankruptcy petition served by Servis-Terminal LLC (ST) was based on a Russian court judgment obtained against Drelle, a former director of ST. The judgment had been upheld following appeals to superior courts in Russia.

There was no evidence that Drelle would be able to pay the judgment debt which was considerably more than the bankruptcy threshold.

Appeal

The High court has recently considered whether permission should be given retrospectively to lift an administration moratorium to allow a counterclaim to proceed.

Background

The counterclaim had been brought by WWTAI against CargoLogicAir Ltd (in administration) (CLA) without the consent of the administrators or the Court. CLA contended that the counterclaim was issued in breach of the statutory administration moratorium and should be struck out.

Solely to set off

On 4 March 2024, the High Court approved the amended restructuring plan (the Plan) of Project Lietzenburger Straße Holdco S.à.r.L (the Company) a Luxembourg incorporated company part of the German Aggregate Holdings Group, despite refusing to sanction its original plan.

In 2021, the FCA published its Guidance for IPs on how to approach regulated firms. Since then, there have been changes in the legal framework affecting firm failure, changes in the regulatory framework and changes in the UK economic climate.

The FCA is consulting on amendments to reflect these changes including:

一、问题的提出

债务人向债权人借款，由保证人提供保证担保。借款到期后，债务人与保证人均未偿还该笔借款。后法院裁定受理保证人的破产申请，债权人因此向保证人的管理人申报债权，要求保证人就债务人所欠借款及利息承担保证责任。管理人审查并确认了该笔债权。（简见以下表1案型法律关系表）根据《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉有关担保制度的解释》（下称“《民法典担保制度解释》”）第22条之规定，[1]保证债权应当自保证人的破产申请受理时起停止计息。与债务人破产时保证债权随同主债权停止计息不同的是，保证人破产导致保证债权停止计息，却不能反向及于主债权也停止计息。其后债务人向债权人清偿了部分债务。此时，管理人将面临如下难题：在主债权未停止计息的情况下，债权人获得债务人部分清偿后，在保证人的破产程序中，管理人先前认定的债权数额是否须要调整？如果须要调整，应该如何进行调整？鉴于该问题在实务中相对较为前沿，笔者曾多次尝试检索与之相关的法规、判例、理论文献、实务文章等，对于解决该问题的资料寥寥无几。虽无前人的解决方案可供参照，但该问题仍然亟待解决。在缺乏相应法律规范的情况下，下文将通过民法基础理论的推演，尝试为解决这一问题提供思路。