New rules in the UK allow Companies House to share non-public information with insolvency officeholders and the Official Receiver.
While in many cases there may be limited non-public information available from Companies House that will be useful to insolvency officeholders, this is another tool available to deploy in appropriate cases. It is specifically envisaged to assist officeholders pursuing claims for fraudulent and wrongful trading, transactions at an undervalue and preferences.
Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Following a series of important decisions in England and across Europe, it is now beyond doubt that court-based restructuring processes should be approached from the outset as pieces of litigation.
We have seen increasingly sophisticated challenges to restructurings, which the courts are willing to accommodate. In appropriate cases, the courts have also refused to sanction restructurings.
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.
On 16 May 2023, Mr Justice Adam Johnson in the High Court refused to sanction the restructuring plan proposed by The Great Annual Savings Company Limited (GAS) following objections from HMRC.
On 30 March 2022, the English court sanctioned the most recent restructuring plan proposed by Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited (Smile).
A recent England and Wales High Court decision demonstrates the increasingly litigious nature of Court-supervised restructuring processes. It also addresses the Court’s approach to whether foreign recognition risks represent a ‘blot’ on a proposed scheme of arrangement so that the Court should decline sanction ('the recognition/blot question').
One difficulty encountered by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy is the use of one or more aliases by a bankrupt. Whether it is an innocent use of a nickname or an attempt to conceal one's identity, the use of an alias can often create problems for creditors seeking to pursue debts and for trustees seeking to recover assets held by a bankrupt.
How does it happen?
As concerns about illegal phoenix activity continue to mount, it is worth remembering that the Corporations Act gives liquidators and provisional liquidators a powerful remedy to search and seize property or books of the company if it appears to the Court that the conduct of the liquidation is being prevented or delayed.
When a person is declared a bankrupt, certain liberties are taken away from that person. One restriction includes a prohibition against travelling overseas unless the approval has been given by the bankrupt's trustee in bankruptcy. This issue was recently considered by the Federal Court in Moltoni v Macks as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Moltoni (No 2) [2020] FCA 792, which involved the Federal Court's review of the trustee's initial refusal of an application by a bankrupt, Mr Moltoni, to travel to and reside in the United Kingdom.