It’s hard to write a pithy article about the transfer of proceedings from the High Court in London to the Central London County Court (CLCC), but given its wide-reaching implications I thought it was worth a try.
The High Court has approved a £3bn rescue package for Thames Water to plug the leak in the water company's finances while it seeks to secure a wider restructuring deal. This is stage one in Thames Water's plan to restructure its £19bn debt mountain and secure £5bn in equity investment, with the initial cash injection urgently required to service £200m of debt which falls due on 24 March.
In a recent ruling (NMC Health PLC (in Administration) v Ernst & Young LLP [2024] EWHC 2905 (Comm)), the High Court declined to order disclosure of witness statements and transcripts of interviews conducted by administrators during their initial investigations, citing litigation privilege.
Litigation privilege
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics, according to Mark Twain, are pliable. While the author of Tom Sawyer likely wasn’t thinking about the annual UK insolvency statistics, they certainly illustrate his point. The Telegraph uses the 2024 statistics, released Tuesday, to criticise Rachel Reeves, suggesting that an increase in compulsory liquidations in 2024 is a direct result of the October budget. Given that the financial impact of the budget will not be felt directly by businesses until April 2025, this is very much a case of putting the cart before the horse.
The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) has published guidance (the Guidance) following the publication of the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.2) Regulations 2024 (the Regulations) on 14 November 2024. OFSI is the body with regulatory oversight of the financial sanctions regime and is responsible for its implementation and enforcement within the UK.
The Times reported yesterday on the continued promotion of an “insolvency avoidance” scheme, despite efforts by the Insolvency Service to close it down. The scheme claims to offer directors of distressed companies a means of avoiding formal liquidation – with the associated scrutiny of their actions and risk of personal liability.
When you read the papers do you start from the front or back? I usually skim read the front-page headlines and immediately flick to the back (sport) pages. It’s less dispiriting that way. Or if it’s the weekend, I fumble my way through the different sections, past the gazillions of adverts showcasing tyre inflators and hair loss treatments, before I land at the sports section. They don’t make it easy for you do those weekend editors.
The court has provided guidance on how to protect personal representatives in potentially insolvent estates in Wedgwood v Hosein and another [2024].
The recent High Court decisions in Boughey & Anor v Toogood International Transport and Agricultural Services Ltd and Re Pindar Scarborough Ltd (in administration) have helpfully provided clarity on the extent to which secured creditors that have been paid in full are required to consent to proposed administration extensions. Unhelpfully, however, the court’s approach is fundamentally at odds with the position of the Insolvency Service.
简介
最近在Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9一案中，香港终审法院澄清，如果受争议的呈请债务所涉及的协议载有专属司法管辖权条款（「专属条款」），法院应如何处理清盘及破产呈请。
案情
上诉人于2017年与CP Global Inc（「该公司」）及答辩人订立了一份信贷及担保协议（「信贷协议」）。据此，上诉人向该公司提供定期贷款，答辩人就该公司结欠上诉人的所有款项提供个人担保。信贷协议载有专属条款，就该协议所产生或与之有关的所有法律程序赋予纽约法院专属司法管辖权。
于2020年，上诉人认为发生了信贷协议所指的违约事件，故要求答辩人支付信贷协议项下的未偿还本金及利息。答辩人未有按上诉人的要求还款，因此上诉人在香港针对答辩人展开破产法律程序。另一方面，答辩人在纽约提起诉讼，请求法院求宣告并无发生信贷协议下的违约事件。
答辩人反对在香港提出破产呈请的主要理由之一，是专属条款规定上诉人须首先在纽约法院就双方争议进行诉讼，然后才可在香港展开破产程序。