The economic picture has started to improve, with modest GDP growth in the first half of 2024. However, the enormous strains on business finances over the past four years have caused insolvency rates to rise sharply this year.
According to The Insolvency Service’s latest figures, company insolvencies in June 2024 were the third highest since monthly records started in 2020. Administrations in June 2024 were 22% higher than in June 2023, and the number of CVAs was 64% higher in June 2024 than June 2023.
In the twelfth edition of the Going concerns, we cover set-offs and the net result of a creditor dealing with a company in liquidation; the first cross-border pre-pack scheme filed in the Singapore International Commercial Court ("SICC") by a foreign unregistered company that has been successfully sanctioned in Singapore: Re No Va Land Investment Group Corporation [2024] SGHC(I) 17 ("No Va Land"); and UAE's new bankruptcy law that came into effect on 1 May 2024, a relatively substantial overhaul of the onshore insolvency and restructuring regime in the UAE.
On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, addressing the question of whether a company can use bankruptcy to resolve the liability of non-debtor third parties. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and an injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge the claims against a nondebtor without the consent of the affected claimants.
On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. ____ (2024) holding that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow for the inclusion of non-consensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans. This decision settles a long-standing circuit split on the propriety of such releases and clarifies that a plan may not provide for the release of claims against non-debtors without the consent of the claimants.
Case law relating to the potential recharacterisation of fixed charges tends not to come around too often, but the recent case of Re UKCloud Ltd follows (relatively) hot on the heels of the Avanti Communications case, discussed here.
The case background
En 2023, le nombre de défaillances d’entreprises est en hausse par rapport à l’année précédente. À cela s’ajoutent le rallongement des délais de paiement, l’inflation, des taux d’intérêt toujours élevés...À la lumière dececlimat monétaire et financier instable se profile la gestion du risque crédit.
In its recent German Pellets decision, the Fifth Circuit held that a creditor could not assert its indemnification defenses in a suit brought by the trustee of a liquidation trust because the Chapter 11 plan’s express language permanently enjoined the defenses and the creditor chose not to participate in the debtor’s bankruptcy despite having actual knowledge of it.
Following our article on statutory demands (“SD”), if a company has received a SD and has failed to raise a legitimate dispute or make payment, then the creditor can proceed with a winding up petition. Winding up petitions play a crucial role in the legal landscape, particularly in the context of debt recovery and business insolvency.
A statutory demand (“SD”) is a formal written request for payment of a debt, typically issued by a creditor to a debtor. This legal document serves as a precursor to more severe actions, such as winding up proceedings or bankruptcy. Understanding the key aspects of a SD is crucial for both creditors seeking repayment and debtors facing potential legal consequences.
1. Purpose and legal basis