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.

Changes are afoot to the statutory regime governing special administrations for regulated water companies (the SAR) following the publication of a suite of new legislation.

Impact of the changes on pension trustees

A thorny question facing a company when considering a Restructuring Plan is how to deal with HMRC particularly following HMRC’s opposition to recent plans.

Creditors now have some assistance in these deliberations thanks toguidance published by HMRC setting out how they will approach discussions with companies considering a Restructuring Plan.

Although a non-insolvency case the recent case of PACCAR Inc & Ors v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors (“PACCAR”) has caused waves in the litigation market (including insolvency litigation market) following the Supreme Court finding that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) where funders recover a percentage of the amount awarded to a claimant are damaged based agreements (DBAs) – which- unless the LFA complied with the Damages Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regs”) means that they are unenforceable.

In a decision likely to be welcomed by both debtors and lenders, the High Court has held that a charge granted by Avanti Communications Limited (“Avanti”) was properly characterised as a fixed charge (rather than a floating charge) notwithstanding that the chargor retained an element of control over the charged assets. A key plank of the decision was that the relevant assets were not ‘fluctuating assets’ or ‘stock in trade’ that the chargor might be expected to dispose of in the ordinary course of its business.

The recent decision in Re Astora Women’s Health LLC illustrates the importance of cross-border recognition of insolvency processes, highlighting the benefits of a joined-up global approach which recognises that modern business do not stop for international borders.

With Astora hot off the presses and the twenty-fifth anniversary of the UNCITRAL Model Law on the horizon the team at SPB have taken stock of the cross-border recognition framework from the perspective of the UK and the US.

Astora

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。

The UK High Court has ruled that the obligations of third-party guarantors are not affected by a part 26A restructuring plan being sanctioned in respect of the underlying obligations. This approach mirrors the way guarantees are dealt with in a part 26 scheme of arrangement.

The case of Oceanfill Ltd. v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd & Cannons Group Limited examined whether a restructuring plan under part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) had the effect of releasing liability arising under a third-party guarantee.