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.
"The law on 'knowing receipt' has perplexed judges and academics alike for several decades" – Lord Burrows (paragraph 99).
In a groundbreaking ruling, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia recently delivered a decision that is poised to significantly influence insolvency proceedings. The case, cited as British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246, marks the first time an appellate court has addressed the jurisdiction and appropriateness of reverse vesting orders (RVOs) in receivership contexts. This ruling provides crucial insights into the court's reasoning and its implications for legal and non-legal professionals alike.
Background and core issue
They say every man needs protection, they say that every man must fall.1
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.
A public and competitive process
2023 closed with a significant rise in the number of insolvencies in France. With a total of 56,200 insolvency proceedings (redressement judiciaire and liquidation judiciaire), mainly in the retail sector, the opportunities for taking over a business at the bar of a court are multiplying.
However, these takeovers are governed by a strict timetable and formalities, requiring a thorough understanding of the workings of insolvency law.
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
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 23-124
Today, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow a bankruptcy court to discharge claims against a non-debtor without the consent of affected claimants.
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).