Boris Becker was originally made bankrupt in June 2017. In the ordinary course, a debtor is made bankrupt for a period of one year, and upon the anniversary of the bankruptcy order they are automatically discharged. While a bankrupt is undischarged, they are subject to various restrictions e.g. they are unable to act as company director or be involved in the management, promotion or formation of a business. Once discharged, the debtor can (in theory) start to rebuild their life afresh while their pre-bankruptcy assets remain in the hands of their trustee in bankruptcy (the Trustee).

While franchising has typically been a more robust business model than others, it remains susceptible to broader economic and sectoral pressures, as The Body Shop’s recent entry into administration demonstrates.

In the unfortunate event that a franchisor or franchisee becomes insolvent, disruption is inevitable. However, insolvency doesn’t necessarily spell a terminal outcome. In this article we consider some of the key considerations for both franchisors and franchisees.

Handling franchisee insolvency: the franchisor’s approach

Harbour Front Limited v The Official Receiver and Trustee of the Property of Leung Yat Tung [2024] HKCFI 1203 provides an interesting illustration of how the ‘prevention principle’ may be applied in an unusual scenario of a claim for contractual interests under a settlement agreement. Whilst contractual provisions are unlikely to provide for any express constraint on a claim for contractual interests, the judgment offers valuable insight into how such a claim may nonetheless be subject to limitation.

In Re Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited[2024] HKCA 299, the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP, Barma and G Lam JJA) held that the approach regarding exclusive jurisdiction clauses in bankruptcy proceedings laid down by the Court of Final Appeal in Re Lam Kwok Hung Guy, ex p Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP (2023) 26 HKCFAR 119 (“Guy Lam CFA”) (upholding the Court of Appeal’s judgm

The recent case of Re VE Global UK Ltd (In Administration) [2024] EWHC 749 (Ch) is a useful reminder to practitioners and lenders alike of the importance of correctly identifying documents which create security interests, analysing them to determine whether such security interest is required to be presented for registration at Companies House and ensuring that all registration steps in respect of such interests are completed within the required 21 day time period.

In the recent case of Loveridge v Povey and Ors [2024] EWHC 329 (Ch) a company shareholder sought to challenge the administrators’ decision to rescue a balance sheet solvent company as a going concern by securing additional funding, as opposed to pursuing a sale of the business.

Background

In the recent decision of Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 (dated 27 March 2024), the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld a director’s breach of duty by authorising the payment of a dividend and the repayment of a loan to himself. The decision, considering Sequana, sheds further important light on the directors’ duty to consider or act in the interest of the company’s creditors, coined as “creditor duty”.

The Facts – Briefly Stated

The High Court has handed down an important decision confirming that an unrecognised foreign judgment can be used to form the basis of a bankruptcy petition.

In rejecting the bankrupt’s appeal, the court confirmed that a debt arising pursuant to such a judgment is capable of constituting a “debt” for the purposes of section 267 Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act), despite the fact that the underlying judgment had not been the subject of recognition proceedings in England.

Facts

Junior debt – sometimes referred to as subordinated debt, occasionally talked about as mezzanine debt – is referred to as such because it ranks behind other, more senior, debt owing by the same borrower. Junior creditors can come in many different shapes and sizes and can include shareholder lenders and specialist debt investors or funds.

Background

On 12 March 2024, the Court dismissed an application by the Petitioner to reverse the adjudication of the Joint and Several Liquidators (“Liquidators”) over its proof of debt, which was based on a default judgment obtained against the Company (“POD”).