On 28 June 2021, Zacaroli J declined to sanction a restructuring plan (the “Plan”) in respect of Hurricane Energy PLC (the “Company”) under section 901F of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”). The Company is part of a group whose business is extracting oil stored within fractures in solid rock beneath the sea.

On Monday 14th September 2020, Mrs Justice Falk issued her reasoned judgment, in respect of the application by Codere Finance 2 (UK) Limited (the "Company") to convene a single class of its creditors to consider and vote on a proposed scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 ( the "Scheme").

In a hearing spanning three days, the High Court of England and Wales addressed multiple grounds of challenge from a dissenting noteholder but nonetheless granted the Company's request to convene a single meeting of its scheme creditors.

Background

On 3 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill was debated by the Committee of the Whole House of Commons. This follows on from the first reading in the House of Commons on 20 May 2020. This is the bill which enacts many of the measures referenced in the government's announcements earlier this year.

On 20 May 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill had its first reading in the House of Commons. This is the bill that enacts many of the measures referenced in the government's announcements earlier this year.

On 20 May 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill had its first reading in the House of Commons.This is the bill that enacts many of the measures referenced in the government's announcements earlier this year.

On 28 March 2020, the UK government announced it would be implementing new measures to improve the insolvency system aiming to, amongst other things, support businesses under pressure as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and resulting restrictions.

Government support package – relaxation of insolvency rules

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.