Introduction

2016年破産倒産法については、導入以来、継続して改正が行われてきています。2018年倒産破産法(第2次修正)法(以下「2018年改正法」)により、不動産プロジェクトの割当者(以下「住宅購入者」)は、「金融債権者」の範囲に含まれ、不動産開発業者に対する破産手続を開始することができるようになりました。その後、当該2018年改正法については、Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of Indiaにて最高裁で争われ、最終的に憲法上の有効性が認められました。

The recent company insolvency statistics for Q1 2022 show the number of company insolvencies is continuing to increase. The figures show creditors’ voluntary liquidations as being the most common procedure followed by compulsory liquidations – the number of which is more than twice as high as in the previous quarter, although still below pre-pandemic levels.

In Re Edengate Homes (Butley Hall) Limited (in liquidation) [2022] EWCACiv 626, the Court of Appeal considered a challenge to an assignment of claims by a liquidator.

Government-backed loan schemes implemented to assist ailing businesses during the pandemic have been subject to widespread abuse. An estimated £4.9bn of the £47bn invested in business support loans during the life of the pandemic is thought have been lost to fraud and up to £17bn may never be repaid. In response to concerns about potential abuse of limited company liability, new legislation received Royal Assent on 15 December 2021 - The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 (the Act).

The deadline for obtaining an order to suspend discharge from bankruptcy is absolute, as confirmed in the recent case of Paul Allen (as Trustee in Bankruptcy) v Pramod Mittal (in bankruptcy) [2022] EWHC 762 (Ch).

Background

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) was enacted with a primary objective of timebound reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate debtors. Under the Code, financial or operational creditors of a corporate debtor can approach the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) to initiate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor upon occurrence of a default by the corporate debtor.

Introduction

In a damning indictment of the government's handling of the bounce back loan scheme, the Times are reporting that up to £17bn of the £47bn spent by the government on bounce back loans will never be paid back. Of the irrecoverable sums, around £4.9bn is suspected to have been lost to fraud.

The Court of Appeal has held that the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders (who nonetheless enjoy priority status in respect of their creditor claims), providing some much-needed clarity on this issue for e-money institutions and their clients.

A link to the judgment can be found here.

Background

In the recent Court of Appeal case of Re Ipagoo LLP, the court provided welcome clarity on the status of e-money holders’ claims under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMR). In brief, the Court of Appeal held that the EMR do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders. The court confirmed, however, that e-money holders will still enjoy priority status in respect of their e-money creditor claims (crucially) whether or not their funds have been duly segregated from the general pool of assets, as required under the EMR.