City Gardens Ltd v DOK82 Ltd [2023] EWHC 1149 (Ch) was a successful appeal against the decision of the district judge below to dismiss a winding up petition on several bases: first that the court had no jurisdiction to make an order because arrangements between the parties were subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, secondly because they provided for the application of Hong Kong law rather than English law, thirdly by reason of disputes regarding certain other contractual terms, and finally by reason of an issue as to whether the company had a viable cross claim.

The judgment of Adam Johnson J in Re Great Annual Savings Company Ltd, (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 1141 (Ch) demonstrates again the rigorous approach the courts are taking in relation to the fulfilment of the conditions required to “cram down” dissenting creditors in restructuring plans as well as in the exercise of the court’s discretion to sanction them.

A claim under s 127 is restitutionary (see Hollicourt (Contracts) Ltd v Bank of Ireland and Ahmed v Ingram), and in a case involving the payment of money is for unjust enrichment (see Officeserve Technologies Ltd v Annabel’s (Berkeley Square) Ltd).

Re Nasmyth Group Ltd (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 988 (Ch) sets out Leech J’s reasons for refusing to sanction a Part 26A restructuring plan.

The company acted as the holding company of engineering subsidiaries in the UK and elsewhere and provided administrative and treasury functions to the rest of the group.

In years past defaulting lender mechanics in a subscription credit facility may have been viewed as boiler plate language and, in most cases, the relevant provisions have not received much attention. In light of recent events in the banking industry, defaulting lender provisions have gained some renewed attention. In this article we take a look at the current general state of defaulting lender provisions and the impacts on the lender and borrower.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal (Newey, Males and Snowden LLJ) in Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417 demonstrates the importance of the adequacy of any undertaking in damages given in support of an application for a freezing order and underlines the need for full and frank disclosure.

What Happened

In a ruling issued just yesterday, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC et al., 598 U.S. ----, 2023 WL 2992693 (2023) (“MOAC”), the United States Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) held that Bankruptcy Code section 363(m) is not jurisdictional in terms of appellate review of asset sale orders, but rather, that such section only contains limitations on the relief that may be afforded on appeal. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is often relied upon by purchasers of assets in a bankruptcy case as providing finality to any sale order.

There are many cases about the appointment of administrators, not so many about terminating their appointment. Re Central Properties Holdings Ltd (In Administration) [2023] EWHC 829 (Ch) is one.

On March 14, 2023, Judge Ashely M. Chan of the U.S.