The case of Re Premier FX Limited (in Liquidation) highlights the potentially dire consequences for a creditor who does not file their proof of debt by a set deadline - and makes clear that mistakenly forgetting to do so is not a sufficient excuse.

Premier FX was in business as a foreign exchange dealer and money transfer agent. Financial advice was sought when it became clear to the (newly appointed) directors that the claims received from customers exceed the balance of the funds held by the company.

A pizza boss has been handed an eight-year director disqualification for failing to maintain adequate records to explain how a £50,000 bounceback loan was used.

Introduction

In the case of Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535, which concerns a negligence claim for breach of Quincecare duty and dishonest assistance against the defendant bank, the English Court of Appeal (“CA”) unanimously found in favour of HSBC Bank plc (“HSBC”) and struck out both claims.

Background

簡介

在Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535一案中，英國匯豐銀行（「匯豐」）被指違反Quincecare責任及提供不誠實的協助，因而被控疏忽。英國上訴法院（「上訴庭」）一致裁定匯豐勝訴，兩項申索均被駁回。

背景

於2009年倒閉清盤的Stanford International Bank Limited（「原告人」）在2003至2009年期間在匯豐持有多個帳戶（「涉案帳戶」）。原告人因被用作史上其中一個最大的龐茲騙局而欠債超過50億美元。原告人的清盤人（「清盤人」）向匯豐提出以下兩項申索：

简介

在Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535一案中，英国汇丰银行（「汇丰」）被指违反Quincecare责任及提供不诚实的协助，因而被控疏忽。英国上诉法院（「上诉庭」）一致裁定汇丰胜诉，两项申索均被驳回。

背景

于2009年倒闭清盘的Stanford International Bank Limited（「原告人」）在2003至2009年期间在汇丰持有多个帐户（「涉案帐户」）。原告人因被用作史上其中一个最大的庞兹骗局而欠债超过50亿美元。原告人的清盘人（「清盘人」）向汇丰提出以下两项申索：

R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court [2021] EWHC 3013

The case of Palmer has confirmed that an insolvency practitioner in the role of an administrator can be prosecuted (and therefore personally liable) for a failure to follow correct redundancy procedures prescribed by s194 TULRCA.

Where an individual is found to have acted in breach of s194, they may be personally liable to an unlimited fine (or a fine of up to £5,000 if the offence is committed before 12 March 2015).

The facts

Part 1 of this article considered some of the checks and balances that apply when seeking access to one of the law’s most potent weapons, including the tests the applicant must satisfy, and exceptions that are commonly included in the order made by the court (see ‘Freezing orders: policing the nuclear option (Pt 1)’, NLJ, 7 & 14 January 2022, p15).

Despite calls upon the government to intervene and, later, attempts to sell the business, the South West construction firm Midas has collapsed into administration this week.

The collapse of the business has led to over 300 redundancies, though it is understood that a section of the business (Mi-Space) has been sold, saving over 50 jobs. Concerns have also been raised about the knock-on effort on sub-contractors and connected businesses, many of whom have been left out of pocket through unfulfilled contracts and unpaid invoices.

When the availability of bounceback loans was announced, it was heralded as the way for small businesses to quickly and easily access loans of between £2,000 and £50,000 during the COVID pandemic. Undoubtedly, it has helped a significant number of small businesses to weather the storm that COVID brought on many.

简介

最近在Nuoxi Capital Ltd (In Liquidation in the British Virgin Islands) v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817一案中，香港法院裁定，尽管香港法院承认维持完好契据（「维好契据」）的提供者在内地所提出的清盘程序并向管理人提供各种协助，但境外债券持有人在维好契据下的权利仍应根据合约的专属司法管辖权条款在香港裁决。

维持完好安排与释疑函件类似，都是内地企业支持其附属公司发行境外债券的常用增强信贷方式。由于维好契据不构成担保，内地企业集团往往以此规避禁止为境外债务提供抵押的规定。

背景