Fulltext Search

In FCA v Carillion [2021] EWCH 2871 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) enforcement action against Carillion Plc (in Liquidation) (Carillion) pursuant to certain provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) does not constitute an “action or proceeding” and therefore falls outside of the scope of the statutory stay imposed by section 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).

Section 130(2) of the Act

Regulations have been published which, from 1 October 2021, will change the current restrictions on the use of winding up petitions (the regulations). A link to the regulations can be found here.

In summary, the regulations partially lift the temporary restriction on the use of winding up petitions imposed by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 and provide that:

After a somewhat leisurely start, case law regarding the new restructuring plan in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 now seems to be picking up pace.

On 13 January 2020, the High Court sanctioned the restructuring plans proposed by three UK companies in the DeepOcean group, under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006.

The Court of Appeal judgment handed down on 9 November 2020 in the case of HH Aluminium & Building Products Ltd and another v Bell and another (Joint Trustees In Bankruptcy of Ide) [2020] EWCA Civ 1469 provides a clear warning to applicants: serve your application notice without delay, particularly if a limitation period is close to expiry.

Factual background:

In this article we will cover the notice requirements for an out of court administration appointment by a company or its directors, and look at the recent case of Re Tokenhouse VB Ltd (Formerly VAT Bridge 7 Ltd) [2020] EWHC 3171 (Ch).

The notice requirements

On 4 September 2020, the High Court sanctioned a restructuring plan of Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin) under the new Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, brought in by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA); this is the first time the court has sanctioned a restructuring plan under the new Part 26A.

本文主要讨论公司型基金、合伙型基金自行清算的主要流程,并就基金自行清算出现僵局等情形时,如何申请法院启动基金强制清算程序的主要问题作初步探讨。

基金清算适用的法律

对于公司型基金的清算,其主要适用《公司法》以及《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国公司法>若干问题的规定(二)》(下称“《公司法司法解释二》”)《关于审理公司强制清算案件工作座谈会纪要》(下称“《强制清算纪要》”)以及部分高院出台的相关审判指导。

对于合伙型基金的清算,除适用《合伙企业法》外,可参照公司法律的有关规定。对此,《民法总则》第一百零八条规定,“非法人组织除适用本章规定外,参照适用本编第三章第一节的有关规定”;第三编第一节对法人清算作出了相关规定,其中第七十一条规定,“法人的清算程序和清算组职权,依照有关法律的规定;没有规定的,参照适用公司法律的有关规定”。例如,北京一中院在(2020)京01清申27号《民事裁定书》中基于上述规定,认定合伙型基金的清算应当参照《公司法》的相关规定进行。

除前述规定外,中国证监会、中基协的相关规定,以及其他行业自治组织的相关规定,亦可作为基金清算的依据。