In spite of its cross-border dimension, the subject matter and result of the hearing giving rise to the judgment in Re Khadzhi-Murat Derev (in Bankruptcy); Allen v Derev & Anor [2023] EWHC 387 (Ch) are conventional.
Miles J’s judgment in Re Sova Capital Ltd [2023] EWHC 452 (Ch) will, like that of Jonathan Hilliard QC in Re Petropavlovsk Plc,be welcomed as a further example of the courts acting to assist insolvency practitioners selling assets in unusual circumstances.
簡介
英國和香港的法例均規定，債權人只可以就其應獲支付的算定金額提出破產呈請，但相關法例條文並無界定何謂「算定金額」（liquidated sum）。在Re Dusoruth (a bankrupt) Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 2346 (Ch) 一案中，英格蘭及威爾斯商業及財產法庭（「法院」）澄清，復還不當得利的申索不論如何確切，仍不能被視為算定金額，因此不能成為破產呈請的依據。
背景
申請人是一名商人，亦是在英國、英屬維爾京群島及馬爾他等多個司法管轄區註冊的多間公司的最終擁有人。他以其中一家公司進行欺詐，遊說富戶投資，然後透過無抵押貸款將資金轉移到他控制的其他公司。申請人被他其中一間正在清盤的公司（「答辯人」）基於以下債務提出破產呈請（「該破產呈請」），並於2020年11月被判定破產：
1.從答辯人的銀行帳戶支付，用於清償申請人的個人信用卡帳單的361,899.73歐元；及
Introduction
Relief under ss 423-425 Insolvency Act 1986 is not limited to cases of insolvency, as the decision of David Edwards KC, sitting as a High Court judge in the Commercial Court, in Integral Petroleum SA v Petrogat FZE & Ors ([2023] EWHC 44 (Comm)) demonstrates.
简介
英国和香港的法例均规定，债权人只可以就其应获支付的算定金额提出破产呈请，但相关法例条文并无界定何谓「算定金额」（liquidated sum）。在Re Dusoruth (a bankrupt) Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 2346 (Ch) 一案中，英格兰及威尔斯商业及财产法庭（「法院」）澄清，复还不当得利的申索不论如何确切，仍不能被视为算定金额，因此不能成为破产呈请的依据。
背景
申请人是一名商人，亦是在英国、英属维尔京群岛及马尔他等多个司法管辖区注册的多间公司的最终拥有人。他以其中一家公司进行欺诈，游说富户投资，然后透过无抵押贷款将资金转移到他控制的其他公司。申请人被他其中一间正在清盘的公司（「答辩人」）基于以下债务提出破产呈请（「该破产呈请」），并于2020年11月被判定破产：
1.从答辩人的银行帐户支付，用于清偿申请人的个人信用卡帐单的361,899.73欧元；及
Following the important decision in Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2022] (see our summary here), LDC (Portfolio One) Ltd v George Downing Construction
NGI Systems & Solutions Ltd v The Good Box Co Labs Ltd [2023] EWHC 274 (Ch) records the court’s reasons for sanctioning a restructuring plan made between the defendant company, The Good Box Co Labs Limited, its members, and separate classes of its creditors pursuant to section 901F Companies Act 2006. It also deals with other matters arising out of the company’s administration.
Despite the “elegance” of the arguments challenging the calling of creditors’ meetings on behalf of the former CEO, who argued that the rights of “B” shareholders including himself, would be adversely affected, Trower J found that as neither the contractual terms of the rights themselves nor their economic value would be affected by the plans, he would order calling of the meetings under section 901C(3) Companies Act 2006. There was no real change to the economic value for the B shareholders.
ICC Judge Barber’s judgment in the case of Purkiss v Kennedy & ors (Re Ethos Solutions Ltd) [2022] EWHC 3098 (Ch) deals with a complex and late application for joinder and to re-amend proceedings. It was handed down following a four day hearing and weighs in at over 200 paragraphs, facts indicative of the unusual nature of the application.