In a recent judgment, the English court refused to sanction a restructuring plan put forward by oil and gas producer, Hurricane Energy PLC.

Background

The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) recently changed its interpretation of the law regarding clawback claims, Vorsatzanfechtung (case of actio pauliana). Here, we outline how the Court's position on clawback claims has changed and what this could mean for future claims.

What are the existing legal provisions?

The Government has extended the restrictions in place concerning winding-up petitions and forfeiture of business tenancies until 30 September 2021 and 25 March 2022 respectively.

The extensions will receive a mixed reception, with landlords likely to feel particularly aggrieved at the limitations imposed on their ability to pursue debt (by winding-up petition) in circumstances where the tenant can pay, but won’t pay.

Insolvency practitioners will need to be familiar with three new Statements of Insolvency Practice which were introduced with effect from 1 April 2021.

Companies House temporarily paused their strike off processes in April 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The effect of this was to stay all strike off action. The stay was lifted on 10 October 2020 but stayed for a second time on 21 January 2021.

The second stay was lifted on 8 March 2021 and, absent further significant disruption caused by COVID-19, is unlikely to be subject to a further stay.

In Sarjanda Ltd (in liquidation) v Aluminium Eco Solutions Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 210 (Ch), an application to rescind a winding up order was refused where the application had been made over two years outside of the five-day time limit. That level of delay, allegedly caused by the company negotiating payment of its debts, was not a good enough reason for the breach of the time limit.

Practitioners are likely to be familiar with the provisions of The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA 2020”) which introduced new permanent measures to complement the insolvency regime as well as a number of temporary measures to support business dealing with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2016, the High Court determined that a person may propose to do something without having a settled intention to do it and dismissed an application for an order removing a fourth notice of intention from the court file. At the time the fourth notice was filed, the director only intended to appoint administrators if a CVA proposal was rejected by creditors.

Op 28 juni 2021 heeft het kabinet een wetsvoorstel in consultatie gebracht met als doel de turboliquidatie van rechtspersonen transparanter te maken voor schuldeisers. Om dat te bereiken, stelt de minister voor dat het bestuur van een rechtspersoon binnen tien werkdagen na de ontbinding een aantal documenten deponeert bij het Handelsregister en van de deponering mededeling doet aan de schuldeisers. Ook bevat het voorstel de mogelijkheid om, indien een bestuurder de nieuwe regels niet naleeft, een bestuursverbod op te leggen.

On 28 June 2021 the Dutch government initiated a public consultation procedure concerning a legislative proposal intended to make expedited liquidation of legal entities more transparent for creditors. To achieve this goal, the Minister has proposed that the management board of a legal entity should file a number of documents with the Trade Register within 10 days of liquidation and then notify their creditors that they have done so. The proposal also allows for the possibility of disqualifying a managing director who should fail to observe the new rules.