The Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (Practice Schedule) was introduced in 2015 via the Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015. The Practice Schedule was introduced together with the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy) with the intention of providing specific rules to aid in the handling of personal bankruptcies and corporate external administration. 

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.

In Re Scherzade Khilji (in bankruptcy) the court provided useful guidance on when the three-year "use it or lose it" limitation period to realise a bankrupt’s primary place of residence (provided by section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986) commences.

Background

This case concerns the property interests of Ms Scherzade Khilji (Ms Khilji), who was declared bankrupt on 2 July 2018. Her trustee in bankruptcy was appointed on 7 August 2018 (the trustee).

In January, we wrote about Highland Capital Management, L.P. and the reorganized debtor’s filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari, by which the reorganized debtor asked the Supreme Court to consider whether section 524(e) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits non-debtor exculpations.

With all the market turmoil and headlines about insolvencies or potential insolvencies in the financial sector and the wider markets, and potential rescue of stressed/distressed entities, many clients are concerned, and should be thinking, about the potential impact of these developments on their derivatives (commonly documented under an ISDA master agreement (an ISDA)) and, in particular: (a) if the relevant event constitutes a default, potential event of default, event of default or termination event or, alternatively, will trigger automatic early termination, under their ISDAs with their

A raft of new legislation was introduced during the pandemic with the aim of shielding businesses from the full economic impact of lockdown. One such piece of legislation was the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA). Some of the protections implemented by CIGA were temporary – for example, restrictions on the presentation of winding up petitions or the suspension of liability for wrongful trading. However, a number of permanent changes to insolvency legislation remain in force.

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.

Banks often take security for the loans they advance – doing so gives them some additional protection if a borrower fails to repay the loan when due. Where the borrower is a company, that security can take the form of a mortgage, a security assignment, a pledge, lien, or a charge. In this short article, we explain what a charge is and the differences between a fixed and floating charge.

But firstly, what is a charge?

The High Court has approved the sale of a portfolio of securities owned by Sova Capital Limited (Sova) to an unsecured creditor in consideration of the release of that creditor’s claim. The court’s approval of the transaction in this case marks the first reported decision on an unsecured credit bid for the assets of a company in administration (Re Sova Capital Limited (in special administration) [2023] EWHC 452 (Ch)).

Facts

Can a liquidator run an unjust enrichment claim to seek to recover PAYE and NIC liabilities from a company’s directors arising from the company’s use of a “disguised remuneration” employee benefit trust (“EBT”) scheme? Based on the findings of ICC Judge Barber in the case of Re Ethos Solutions Ltd, the answer is “no”.

EBTs: Background