The English High Court has clarified the test it will apply on an application for a moratorium. A company can get the benefit of a moratorium without applying to court but a court application is necessary if a winding up petition has already been presented or the company is an overseas company.
Background
The English Court has, for only the second time, made a compensation order under the Company Directors' Disqualification Act 1986 against a disqualified director.
Background
On 12 September 2023, the government published its long-awaited response to its consultation on the future of insolvency regulation.
The reforms will introduce:
In Hunt v Singh, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in BTI v Sequana (see our alert) in deciding when the directors' duty to creditors arose.
Background
Marylebone Warwick Balfour Management Limited (the Company), entered a tax avoidance scheme between 2002 and 2010 which the directors, on professional advice, believed to be valid.
On 5 July 2023 the Court sanctioned Prezzo Investco Ltd's (Prezzo) restructuring plan despite strong opposition by UK tax authority, HMRC.
HMRC has taken a more active approach to opposing restructuring plans and was successful in blocking the plans recently proposed by GAS and Nasmyth (see our alert).
The English Court of Appeal has widened the scope of transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in a recent case, Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini and others (Invest Bank).
Under s.423, the court will only make an order if it is satisfied that a transaction at an undervalue was entered into by a debtor for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of a person who may make a claim against them or otherwise prejudicing their interests in relation to such claim.
The English tax authority, HMRC, has successfully challenged the restructuring plans put forward by The Great Annual Savings Company Limited (GAS) and Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth).
This is the first time that HMRC has actively challenged restructuring plans at the sanction hearing. The key takeaways from the judgments:
Nasmyth
引言
按照《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（“《企业破产法》”）第三十二条[1]规定，管理人有权起诉请求法院撤销破产企业在一定期间内的个别清偿行为。债权人在面对该类个别清偿撤销诉讼时，时常面临举证困难、法律适用不明确等困境。
我们近期代理某金融机构债权人处理一宗个别清偿纠纷诉讼二审程序。本文将尝试结合这一案件，提出我们对上述法律规定的思考，讨论债权人应对个别清偿撤销诉讼的“困境”与“突围”，并且为债权人提供缓释该类纠纷带来的潜在风险的思路。
一、债权人应对个别清偿撤销纠纷的困境
为充实破产企业偿债资产、维护债权人公平受偿，《企业破产法》赋予管理人针对债务人破产前一定期间内特定行为的撤销权。本文关注的是《企业破产法》第三十二条指向的债务人在破产申请受理前6个月内的个别清偿行为，或称“偏颇性清偿行为”。依照该条规定，撤销该类行为需要满足以下条件：
The insolvency statistics released for March 2023 demonstrate the impact of turbulent trading climates on UK businesses, in particular soaring costs and decreased consumer spending.
The March 2023 insolvency statistics show that UK corporate insolvencies have risen 16% year-on-year and 38% since February 2023.
The High Court has clarified the grounds for challenging a CVA for guarantee creditors.
Background