Categorisation of a charge as fixed or floating will have a significant impact on how assets are dealt with on insolvency and creditor outcomes.
Typical fixed charge assets include land, property, shares, plant and machinery, intellectual property such as copyrights, patents and trademarks and goodwill.
Typical floating charge assets include stock and inventory, trade debtors, cash and currency, movable plant and machinery (such as vehicles), and raw materials and other consumable items used by the business.
On 23 January 2024, the Court of Appeal handed down its much anticipated judgment[1] on the appeal of the Adler restructuring plan pursuant to Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (“RP”), which was sanctioned by the High Court on 12 April 2023
The Court of Appeal has unanimously overturned an unlawful preference ruling from the High Court, finding instead that the repayment of inter-company debt did not amount to a preference because, at the time the operative decision to make the repayment occurred, there was no desire to prefer.
In two recent blog posts we discussed the challenge made to the Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) of Mizen Build/Design Ltd (the “Company”) by Peabody Construction Limited (“Peabody”) and the finding of (i) a material irregularity based on failure to disclose information to creditors in the CVA proposal, and (ii) unfair prejudice based on vote swamping.
In a previous blog about the case of Mizen we considered the case from the point of view of “guarantee stripping”, looking at how the CVA dealt with those claims. However, the CVA was challenged on a number of bases, including whether it was unfairly prejudicial as a consequence of “vote swamping”.
In this blog, we look at that aspect of the case.
A company voluntary arrangement (CVA) is a tool which has been widely utilised by companies seeking to restructure and compromise liabilities.
In recent years CVAs have been in the limelight because of attacks by landlords who feel that they have been unfairly prejudiced by the CVA terms. Largely, challenges such as those to the Regis and New Look CVAs have been unsuccessful, but arguments about unfair prejudice based on “vote swamping” were left open for future debate.
Introduction
The UK Supreme Court has recently delivered a landmark decision in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25. The decision is of great importance as the Supreme Court considered in detail whether the trigger for the directors’ duty to consider creditors’ interest is merely a real risk, as opposed to a probability of or close proximity to, insolvency.
Background
簡介
英國最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中頒下了重要裁決,其重要之處在於最高法院深入探討了董事考慮債權人權益的責任,是只需出現真正的無力償債風險便已觸發,還是在相當可能或瀕臨無力償債時才觸發。
背景
本案的第二及第三答辯人為AWA公司(「該公司」)的董事。於2009年5月,他們安排該公司向該公司唯一股東(「第一答辯人」)派發1.35億歐元的股息(「該股息」),以抵銷第一答辯人結欠該公司的債務。該公司在支付該股息時,其資產負債表及現金流均處於具償債能力的狀況。然而,該公司有一項與污染相關而金額未定的長期或然負債,導致該公司產生未來可能無力償債的真正風險。
简介
英国最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中颁下了重要裁决,其重要之处在于最高法院深入探讨了董事考虑债权人权益的责任,是只需出现真正的无力偿债风险便已触发,还是在相当可能或濒临无力偿债时才触发。
背景
本案的第二及第三答辩人为AWA公司(「该公司」)的董事。于2009年5月,他们安排该公司向该公司唯一股东(「第一答辩人」)派发1.35亿欧元的股息(「该股息」),以抵销第一答辩人结欠该公司的债务。该公司在支付该股息时,其资产负债表及现金流均处于具偿债能力的状况。然而,该公司有一项与污染相关而金额未定的长期或然负债,导致该公司产生未来可能无力偿债的真正风险。
简介
在香港,公司可透过自愿或强制清盘方式进行清盘。在债权人自愿清盘中,债权人有权监督及参与清盘过程,包括委任清盘人。然而,债权人之间可能会出现争议,而部分债权人可能希望清盘程序在法院批准下进行。最近在Re Samwell Spare Parts Limited (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) [2022] HKCFI 2851一案中,法院再次探讨关于将自愿清盘转为强制清盘的法律原则。
案情
迅泽航空备件有限公司(「该公司」)因为一项局部仲裁裁决而结欠Airbus Helicopters China HK Limited(「呈请人」)一笔重大债务。该公司通过一项特别决议案,以债权人自愿清盘方式将该公司清盘。于债权人会议举行时,另一阵营占债务总额超过50% 的关连债权人(「关连债权人」)委任了他们选择的清盘人(「清盘人」)。