The Insolvency Service (in reply to a letter from R3) has confirmed that it will be reframing its view of the term "creditor". This follows the cases last year of Pindar and Toogood where the court was asked to consider whether a paid secured creditor should have consented to an administration extension and therefore, in the absence of consent, whether the extensions were valid in both cases, the judges confirmed that the consent of paid secured creditors was not required.

Restructuring Plans (RPs)

2024 was a year of firsts for RPs, and as case law in this area continues to evolve, there is little doubt that this will carry through into 2025.

It would be remiss not to expect to see more RPs in 2025. News of Thames Water's restructuring is "splashed" all over the press and Speciality Steel's plan might see the first "cram up" of creditors, but there seems a long way to go to get creditors onside.

The below sets out key considerations when dealing with an extension of an administration at the end of the first-year anniversary.

Categorisation of a charge as fixed or floating will have a significant impact on how assets are dealt with on insolvency and creditor outcomes.

Typical fixed charge assets include land, property, shares, plant and machinery, intellectual property such as copyrights, patents and trademarks and goodwill.

Typical floating charge assets include stock and inventory, trade debtors, cash and currency, movable plant and machinery (such as vehicles), and raw materials and other consumable items used by the business.

Introduction

On 19 June 2024, the expected amendment to the Act on Transformations of Business Corporations and Cooperatives was published in the Collection of Laws. The amendment mainly transposes Directive (EU) 2019/2121 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

In addition to harmonising the process of cross-border transformations, unifying the regulation and reducing the administrative burden, the amendment also introduces a completely new form of transformation.

Below we summarise the key changes.

在 Sian Participation v. Halimeda International [2024] UKPC 16一案中，布里格斯勋爵（Lord Briggs）和夏宝伦勋爵（Lord Hamblen）代表委员会作出判决，认可了关于清盘呈请的传统做法。两位法官确认，即使产生债务的合同包含仲裁条款，亦不能削弱债务人证明债务确实存在实质性争议的责任（下称“可审理问题标准”）。

该案中，委员会的观点与香港高等法院暂委法官王鸣峰资深大律师（William Wong SC）在 Dayang v. Asia Master Logistics [2020] 2 HKLRD 423 一案中的观点（见判词第82、98段）如出一辙，可归纳如下：

In Sian Participation v. Halimeda International [2024] UKPC 16, Lords Briggs and Hamblen, delivering judgment on behalf of the Board, endorsed the traditional approach to winding-up petitions. Their Lordships confirmed that a debtor’s duty to show that the debt is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds (“Triable Issue Standard”) remains undiluted even if the contract from which the debt arose contains an arbitration clause.

Introduction

Keepwell deeds have been commonly used in financing arrangements entered into by business groups in Mainland China and foreign lenders because of the former limitation on repatriating proceeds raised overseas by Mainland companies, which had necessitated the use of foreign subsidiaries and a security structure.

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.