The Supreme Court has confirmed that s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which provides for the avoidance of certain transactions where they have been entered into for the purpose of defrauding creditors, has a broad application and covers not only transactions entered into by the debtor personally, but also those entered into via the debtor's company: El-Husseiny and another v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4.
The High Court has held that the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (the "CBIR") did not, in itself, vest rights or interests in English land in the foreign representative.
Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
In a rare case, the High Court has dismissed an application by liquidators pursuant to sections 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which give office-holders broad powers to obtain information and documents concerning the company and its affairs: Webb v Eversholt Rail Limited [2024] EWHC 2217 (Ch).
The High Court has ordered two former directors of British Home Stores ("BHS") to pay equitable compensation of £110 million in respect of misfeasance claims brought by the former retailer's joint liquidators: Wright v Chappell [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch).
In Sian Participation Corporation (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16, the Privy Council considered an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (BVI) as to whether a company should be wound up where the debt on which the winding up application is based is subject to an arbitration agreement and is said to be disputed and/or subject to a cross-claim.
The collapse of UK retailer British Home Stores ("BHS") in 2016 remains one of the most high-profile corporate insolvencies of recent times. It went from being a household name across the UK, with over 11,000 employees, to having reported debts of £1.3 billion, including a pension deficit of nearly £600 million. The group's demise saw the closure of some 164 stores nationwide and significant job losses.
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。
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
In the recent case of Re LYHFL Limited [2023] EWHC 2585 (Ch), the High Court has considered the proper interpretation of paragraph 12(1)(b), Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, by which directors can apply to court for an order putting the company into administration.
Drawing on previous authorities concerning this and similar provisions, the Court concluded that an individual director has no power to make such an application without the approval of the majority of the company's directors and a valid board resolution.
Facts