Standard Profil’s scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by the English High Court on 9 September 2025, notwithstanding a recent Frankfurt court decision casting doubt on whether English restructuring plans and schemes of arrangement proposed by German companies would be capable of sanction by the English courts going forward as a result of recognition issues (see ‘More on this topic’).
When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”
When a company is in financial distress, its directors will face difficult choices. Should they trade on to trade out of the company's financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they delay filing and the company goes into administration or liquidation, will the directors be at risk from a wrongful trading claim by the subsequently appointed liquidator? Once in liquidation, will they be held to have separately breached their duties as directors and face a misfeasance claim? If they file precipitously, will creditors complain they did not do enough to save the business?
Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction, and its legal system is based on English law. Following Hong Kong’s handover to China on 1 July 1997, the Basic Law of Hong Kong is the constitutional document of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Article 8 of the Basic Law provides that: “laws previously in force in Hong Kong, that is, the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and customary law shall be maintained, except for any that contravene [the Basic Law], and subject to any amendment by the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”
The Privy Council has recently delivered a landmark judgment on the interplay between arbitration agreements and winding up petitions. The Board held that the English case of Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1575; Ch 589, which had adopted a pro-arbitration approach to stay or dismiss winding up petitions based on debts covered by arbitration agreements, even if the debts were not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds was wrongly decided.
El Tribunal Supremo, en su sentencia número 513/2024, de 17 de abril (Rec. 2443/2020) ("la Sentencia"), confirma la válida legitimación del recurrente declarado en concurso de acreedores con suspensión de facultades, en tanto la administración concursal omitió el deber de sustituirlo en el procedimiento en trámite.
En los últimos años, sociedades y fondos han sido capaces de aumentar la rentabilidad de sus inversiones al implantar políticas ESG. Esta herramienta les ha permitido, no sólo una correcta mitigación de los riesgos, sino también aprovechar nuevas oportunidades, generar valor y mejorar la reputación corporativa, al mismo tiempo que contribuían al desarrollo sostenible y con impacto en la sociedad.
Digital assets may be new, but existing English insolvency laws and principles can deal with them. So finds the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) in its ‘Legal Statement on Digital Assets and English Insolvency Law’, published this week.
Key takeaways include:
The European Commission has published a new proposal for a Directive that would harmonise certain aspects of insolvency law across the EU. This proposal, following the enactment of Directive (EU) 2019/1023, illustrates a strong desire to facilitate the free movement of capital within Europe. A significant part of the proposed Directive is designed to make laws governing avoidance actions uniform across the EU.
La Dirección General de Seguridad Jurídica y Fe Pública ha resuelto, en Resolución de 19 de febrero de 2024, que una sociedad concursada, en fase de liquidación, no puede nombrar un administrador único. La DGSJyFP excluye, implícitamente, que subsista cualquier rango de funciones representativas que no se vea afectada por el concurso, a pesar de lo generalmente defendido por la doctrina.
Referencias Jurídicas CMS
Abril 2024
Posts Jurídicos
Corporate / M&A