Key Takeaways
In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.
In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.
Government concludes that the permanent Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 measures have been "broadly welcomed", although possible refinements identified A 'Post-Implementation Review' carried out by the Insolvency Service has concluded that the restructuring plan, the standalone moratorium, and the suspension of contractual termination (ipso facto) measures introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) have all been broadly welcomed by stakeholders and are seen as positive additions to the UK's insolvency and restructuring framework. The review
An interim government report has concluded that the restructuring plan, the standalone moratorium, and the restriction on contractual termination (ipso facto) measures introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) satisfy their policy objectives. The report is part of the statutory review which must be carried out within three years of the measures coming into force.
In Re Guy Lam Kwok Hung [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal clarified when a debtor can resist a bankruptcy petition based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in his contract with the petitioner creditor. It is important to appreciate the Court’s reasoning and how it can be applied to various factual scenarios.
In a dramatic reversal of restructuring plan fortunes, HRMC recently successfully challenged two independent mid-market Part 26A Companies Act 2006 restructuring plans: the Nasmyth Group Limited Restructuring Plan (the Nasmyth RP) and the Great Annual Savings Company Ltd Restructuring Plan (the GAS RP). To date, only one other restructuring plan has been refused sanction.
The characterisation of a charge as fixed or floating can have significant ramifications for the chargee on chargor’s insolvency. This is because the holder of a fixed charge enjoys significant advantage, in terms of the order of priority of distributions to creditors, over a floating charge holder.
The English Court has refused to sanction two separate restructuring plans proposed by Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth) and The Great Annual Savings Company Ltd (GAS). Both companies sought to use Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 to “cram down” His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Whilst neither decision is the first time that Part 26A has been used in this way1, they are the first to involve any active participation by HMRC in the sanction hearing2.
In its recent judgment in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong has provided guidance as to how an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a financing agreement impacts on the ability to bring a bankruptcy or winding up petition in Hong Kong. In light of prior inconsistent judgments on the issue, the CFA decision provides welcome clarity as to the impact of exclusive jurisdiction clause on insolvency proceedings and when it may still be appropriate to commence them.
Background
This Quickguide explains the two most common forms to bring a solvent company's life to an end and explains the processes involved in each, as well as in which circumstance which option may be best suited.
Strike-off or members' voluntary liquidation?
When a company has fulfilled its economic purpose or a group of companies wishes to consolidate its structure, there are two main options available to bring a solvent company to an end: