Letting a single property for a limited period of time can amount to “carrying on business” for the purposes of section 265(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), as confirmed in the recent case Durkan v Jones [2023] EWHC 1359 (Ch).

Background

In an earlier article we discussed The Insolvency Service's proposals for the UK to be an early adopter of two new "model laws" published by UNCITRAL relating to insolvency, namely the Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments (MLIJ) and the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency (MLEG).

Earlier this year, the English Court refused to sanction two Part 26A restructuring plans ("RPs") which sought to bind HMRC, the UK tax authority, into restructurings via "cross-class cram down".

The recent judgment in City Gardens Ltd v DOK82 Ltd [2023] EWHC 1149 (Ch) serves as a useful reminder of the extent of, and principles governing, the English court’s jurisdiction to wind up a company on the basis of inability to pay its debts.

Background

City Gardens Limited (C), and DOK82 Ltd (D), had entered into a “memorandum of understanding” (MoU) in relation to a significant debt owed by D to C.

The latest insolvency figures for May show insolvencies continuing to increase, with construction and retail being among the hardest-hit sectors. Company voluntary liquidations continue to top the table, accounting for 85% of the total 2,552 insolvencies for the last month. Compulsory liquidations are also on the rise, particularly driven by HMRC. Small and micro businesses (with annual sales of less than £1m) account for around 99% of all liquidations, according to PWC.

The curiosity with claims based on transactions defrauding creditors is that a transaction can fall within its scope when a debtor is solvent and may never ultimately enter an insolvency process, and there is no requirement of fraud. Such claims fall under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the act), and do require a debtor to have entered into a transaction at an undervalue (drawing on claims under section 238 and 339 of the act, in corporate and personal insolvency respectively) with the intention of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors.

Friday's Business section of The Times made interesting reading to us debt finance nerds.

ne in three of us own crypto currencies, crypto ownership is estimated to have doubled in the UK last year – and two of the world’s biggest crypto exchanges face lawsuits from the securities regulator, the SEC, in the US. Three statistics from the FT this week that put warnings from the UK’s financial regulator – that crypto is largely unregulated and high risk, and investors should be prepared to lose all their money – into context. The FCA noted that it is up to consumers to decide whether to buy crypto, but that many regret making a hasty decision.

Once perceived as a relatively moribund restructuring market, where stressed and distressed borrowers and lenders ended up stuck in interminable refinancing cycles faced with court proceedings that, at least in perception, prioritized local creditor interests, today’s landscape could not be more different.

The English High Court has sanctioned a restructuring plan in respect of EUR 3.2 billion of bonds issued by the German real estate business, Adler Group. The main objective of the plan was to avoid Adler's imminent insolvency by facilitating access to EUR 937.5 million of new money funding and thereby providing a stable platform from which Adler Group can pursue a solvent wind-down by asset sales over time in recovered market conditions. This represents a novel use of the restructuring plan procedure, which has previously been seen exclusively as a corporate 'rescue' tool.