The English Court of Appeal has widened the scope of transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in a recent case, Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini and others (Invest Bank).
Under s.423, the court will only make an order if it is satisfied that a transaction at an undervalue was entered into by a debtor for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of a person who may make a claim against them or otherwise prejudicing their interests in relation to such claim.
Companies are under increasing pressure to examine their ESG policies, particularly after the recent COP26 conference. The UK's commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 has intensified the ESG focus.
What is ESG?
ESG, or Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance, is a term used to describe a set of standards that measures a business' environmental and social impact.
Why is ESG important in a distressed restructuring?
The English tax authority, HMRC, has successfully challenged the restructuring plans put forward by The Great Annual Savings Company Limited (GAS) and Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth).
This is the first time that HMRC has actively challenged restructuring plans at the sanction hearing. The key takeaways from the judgments:
Nasmyth
Background
The impact of the opening of insolvency proceedings on options granted in combined contracts (for example, a lease contract containing a call option for the leased real estate) had been in dispute for a long time.
Decision
The Austrian Supreme Court held that call options granted in lease contracts where the option fee has been paid do not expire with the opening of insolvency proceedings, nor are they subject to the right of the insolvency administrator to terminate the lease contract.
The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled on the question of whether an agreement that grants release from a contract on grounds of insolvency or the opening of insolvency proceedings is effective.
Background
In the recent case of Re JD Group Ltd in liquidation; Bhatia v Purkiss (as liquidator of JD Group Ltd) a company director appealed a decision that he was liable for VAT fraud.
Background
Mr Bhatia was the sole director of a company trading in mobile phones. He was sent a HMRC notice explaining the risks of mobile phone trading and liability for involvement in VAT fraud.
On 12th May 2023, the High Court of England and Wales issued another significant judgment which is expected to advance the progress of reciprocal enforcement of judgments between the courts of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and England and Wales.
引言
按照《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（“《企业破产法》”）第三十二条[1]规定，管理人有权起诉请求法院撤销破产企业在一定期间内的个别清偿行为。债权人在面对该类个别清偿撤销诉讼时，时常面临举证困难、法律适用不明确等困境。
我们近期代理某金融机构债权人处理一宗个别清偿纠纷诉讼二审程序。本文将尝试结合这一案件，提出我们对上述法律规定的思考，讨论债权人应对个别清偿撤销诉讼的“困境”与“突围”，并且为债权人提供缓释该类纠纷带来的潜在风险的思路。
一、债权人应对个别清偿撤销纠纷的困境
为充实破产企业偿债资产、维护债权人公平受偿，《企业破产法》赋予管理人针对债务人破产前一定期间内特定行为的撤销权。本文关注的是《企业破产法》第三十二条指向的债务人在破产申请受理前6个月内的个别清偿行为，或称“偏颇性清偿行为”。依照该条规定，撤销该类行为需要满足以下条件：
The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that "setting aside" or replacing the board is not a requirement to qualify as a de facto director. De facto directors are not required to manage the company instead of, and to the exclusion of, the formal directors.
Background
Under Dutch law, as a matter of principle, only the company (ie a Dutch B.V. or N.V.) is liable for its debts. The directors of the company are in principle not liable.