The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2023 (Collective Redundancies AmendmentAct) came into operation on 1 July 2024.

The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2023 (Act) came into effect on 1 July 2024.

The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2024 (Act) has been signed into law but awaits a commencement order to bring it into operation.

In summary, the Act amends the Companies Act 2014 (Companies Act) by modifying the attribution test for related companies to contribute to the debts of the company being wound up, broadening the operative time for unfair preferences, and varying the test for reckless trading.

1. Related company contribution

Following on from the UK Supreme Court decision in Sequana (discussed here), the recent UK High Court (UKHC) decision in Hunt v Singh [2023] EWHC 1784 (Ch), further considered the duty of directors to take into account the interests of creditors in certain circumstances.

The High Court (Court) recently dismissed a petition seeking the winding up of a biofuel company (Company).

The ex tempore judgment is of note because it considers the standing of the Petitioner to bring the application and the consequences of a relevant witness not being cross-examined by the Petitioner on his affidavit evidence regarding the solvency of the Company.

Background

A previously unsettled aspect regarding the High Court’s (Court) jurisdiction to appoint an examiner to a company which is not formed or registered under the Companies Act 2014 (2014 Act), has been considered in the recent case of In the matter of MAC Interiors Ltd [2023] IEHC 395.

Earlier this year, a group of bondholders advised by William Fry and owed over US$175m by GTLK Europe DAC (GTLK Europe) and GTLK Europe Capital DAC (GTLK Capital) (collectively the Companies) petitioned for the winding up of the Companies on a number of grounds, including that they had failed to discharge scheduled interest payments and the accelerated debt constituted by the bonds following the interest payment defaults.

The High Court (Court) had to determine whether proceeds from two investments in the estate in the bankruptcy of Bernard McNamara (McNamara) were payable to NALM under its security package, or whether they should be retained in the estate in the bankruptcy of McNamara for the benefit of creditors generally (substantive question).

The High Court (Court) has found that it was not appropriate to make a winding up order in respect of a company under section 760(2) of the Companies Act 2014 (Act), where no party was nominated or consented to act as liquidator.

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：