In Sian Participation Corporation (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16, the Privy Council considered an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (BVI) as to whether a company should be wound up where the debt on which the winding up application is based is subject to an arbitration agreement and is said to be disputed and/or subject to a cross-claim.

Despite three recent landmark UK restructuring plan decisions, uncertainty remains around the value, if any, a plan company should offer dissenting creditors as the “deliverability price” of a plan.

Actions brought against the BHS directors by the group’s liquidators have resulted in the largest reported award for wrongful trading since the provision’s introduction, but the judgment highlights some unsettled areas of the law relating to directors’ duties.

The key distinction between a fixed and a floating charge is well established as a matter of English law.

Asset freeze measures enacted by the United Kingdom against designated persons (DPs) can, under certain circumstances, extend to entities “owned or controlled” by DPs. To date, there have been few—and at times partly contradictory—English court cases addressing the “ownership and control” criteria under the UK sanctions regime. The latest judgment in Hellard v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank sought to reconcile the previous guidance provided by the courts in the Mints and Litasco cases.

The collapse of UK retailer British Home Stores ("BHS") in 2016 remains one of the most high-profile corporate insolvencies of recent times. It went from being a household name across the UK, with over 11,000 employees, to having reported debts of £1.3 billion, including a pension deficit of nearly £600 million. The group's demise saw the closure of some 164 stores nationwide and significant job losses.

Seven years after the British Home Stores Group Limited, a well known high street retailer, and its operating subsidiaries entered liquidation, the High Court has found two former directors liable for wrongful trading and misfeasance.

Background

The US Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 5-4 decision on June 27, 2024 that nonconsensual third-party releases, as proposed in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan, were not permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. A nonconsensual third-party release serves to eliminate the direct claims of third parties against nondebtor parties without soliciting the consent of such affected claimants. This contrasts with consensual releases and opt-in or opt-out mechanisms permitted by courts.

The High Court has found that a borrower's debenture granted to a lender in respect of certain internet protocol (IP) addresses was a floating charge.

In a case brought by the liquidators, the High Court found two former directors liable for wrongful trading; that is, continuing to trade when they knew or should have known that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvency (section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986).