The recent judgment in City Gardens Ltd v DOK82 Ltd [2023] EWHC 1149 (Ch) serves as a useful reminder of the extent of, and principles governing, the English court’s jurisdiction to wind up a company on the basis of inability to pay its debts.

Background

City Gardens Limited (C), and DOK82 Ltd (D), had entered into a “memorandum of understanding” (MoU) in relation to a significant debt owed by D to C.

The latest insolvency figures for May show insolvencies continuing to increase, with construction and retail being among the hardest-hit sectors. Company voluntary liquidations continue to top the table, accounting for 85% of the total 2,552 insolvencies for the last month. Compulsory liquidations are also on the rise, particularly driven by HMRC. Small and micro businesses (with annual sales of less than £1m) account for around 99% of all liquidations, according to PWC.

スタートアップ（ベンチャー企業）において重要なエクイティ・インセンティブであ るストックオプション（SO）のうち、税制適格 SO の要件の一つとして、1 株当たりの 権利行使価額として、その新株予約権に係る契約（付与（割当）契約）を締結した時に おける発行会社の 1 株当たりの価額に相当する金額（時価）以上であることが必要とさ れています2。この点につき、従前、種類株式（優先株式）を発行しているスタートアッ プが、普通株式を目的とする税制適格 SO を発行する際の普通株式の 1 株当たりの価額 に相当する金額（時価）の算定ルールが明確ではありませんでした。

The curiosity with claims based on transactions defrauding creditors is that a transaction can fall within its scope when a debtor is solvent and may never ultimately enter an insolvency process, and there is no requirement of fraud. Such claims fall under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the act), and do require a debtor to have entered into a transaction at an undervalue (drawing on claims under section 238 and 339 of the act, in corporate and personal insolvency respectively) with the intention of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors.

Friday's Business section of The Times made interesting reading to us debt finance nerds.

ne in three of us own crypto currencies, crypto ownership is estimated to have doubled in the UK last year – and two of the world’s biggest crypto exchanges face lawsuits from the securities regulator, the SEC, in the US. Three statistics from the FT this week that put warnings from the UK’s financial regulator – that crypto is largely unregulated and high risk, and investors should be prepared to lose all their money – into context. The FCA noted that it is up to consumers to decide whether to buy crypto, but that many regret making a hasty decision.

In the recent case of Avanti Communications Limited (in administration) [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch), the High Court revisited the perpetually knotty question: what level of control is necessary for a charge over assets to take effect as a fixed, rather than floating, charge?

The so-called crypto-winter and associated high profile insolvencies of major players such as FTX, Three Arrows Capital and Genesis may have dampened enthusiasm for this new asset class in some quarters. However, while volatility is likely to be an ongoing characteristic in the short and medium term, it is probably better to view recent events as a period of market correction rather than the "beginning of the end" of crypto assets.

The future for a new class of digital assets

In Re Scherzade Khilji (in bankruptcy) the court provided useful guidance on when the three-year "use it or lose it" limitation period to realise a bankrupt’s primary place of residence (provided by section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986) commences.

Background

This case concerns the property interests of Ms Scherzade Khilji (Ms Khilji), who was declared bankrupt on 2 July 2018. Her trustee in bankruptcy was appointed on 7 August 2018 (the trustee).

A raft of new legislation was introduced during the pandemic with the aim of shielding businesses from the full economic impact of lockdown. One such piece of legislation was the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA). Some of the protections implemented by CIGA were temporary – for example, restrictions on the presentation of winding up petitions or the suspension of liability for wrongful trading. However, a number of permanent changes to insolvency legislation remain in force.