Although an insolvency case, the judgment of His Honour Judge Paul Matthews, sitting as a High Court Judge, in Broom v Aguilar [2024] EWHC 1764 (Ch) deals with a service issue of more general importance.

The judgment of Nicholas Thompsell, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, in Hellard & Ors v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank & Ors [2024] EWHC 1783 (Ch) deals with three questions raised by an application of the trustees in bankruptcy of Anatoly Leonidovich Motylev for directions under s 303(2) Insolvency Act 1986:

(1) Should the trustees treat certain Russian bank creditors as being caught by the sanctions imposed under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019?

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

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.

In December 2012, Halimeda International Ltd lent $140m to Sian Participation Corp. The loan agreement provided that any claim, dispute or difference of whatever nature arising under, out of or in connection with the loan should be referred to arbitration. In September 2020, in proceedings akin to a winding up petition, Halimeda applied to have liquidators appointed over Sian under the BVI Insolvency Act 2003. Wallbank J held that Sian had failed to show that the debt was disputed on genuine and substantial grounds and ordered that the company be put into liquidation.

Restructuring Plans: should an opposing creditor be granted security for costs? Might that open the floodgates where companies are by definition “distressed,” or was this particular Plan more akin to ordinary adversarial litigation? Read our summary below.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has decisively redrawn the boundaries between arbitration agreements and insolvency proceedings in the case of Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd.[1]

Insolvenzanträge von namhaften Projektentwicklern und Immobiliengesellschaften stellen die betroffenen Unternehmen und ihre Gläubiger vor große Herausforderungen und setzen die gesamte Immobilienbranche unter Druck. Gleichzeitig gewinnen alternative Restrukturierungsmethoden, die außerhalb oder bereits im Vorfeld eines formalen Insolvenzverfahrens stattfinden, zunehmend an Bedeutung.

Vor diesem Hintergrund fällt auch vermehrt das Stichwort “StaRUG“, wenn es um die Restrukturierung von immobilienhaltenden Gesellschaften geht.

Deputy ICC Judge Curl KC’s judgment in Wade & Anor v Singh & Ors [2024] EWHC 1203 (Ch) follows applications by the liquidators of MSD Cash & Carry plc to enforce charging orders over a number of properties owned by the defendants, all of them members of the same family. The main protagonists were Mohinder Singh, Surjit Singh Deol and Raminder Kaur Deol, Mohinder being the father of Surjit, and Raminder, married to Surjit. The estate of a deceased family member was added as a party.

Phoenix Tech Ltd had carried on business to defraud HMRC by participating in a kind of VAT fraud sometimes called “missing trader intra-community” fraud or “carousel” fraud. It had submitted a VAT return claiming the right to deduct VAT and a repayment in respect of various transactions in the sum of £4.5 million. HMRC denied the input tax claim in relation to the transactions and issued a misdeclaration penalty for £607,387. The company appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).