In UK venture deals, investors often negotiate the right to appoint a director to the company’s board (as a rule of thumb, an investor with 5% to 10% or more of the company might ask for board rights). On paper, it makes sense, giving a seat at the table, direct access to management, and visibility on key decisions. But before taking that seat, we often advise investors to ask themselves: is it worth the hassle?
On 3 September 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in East Riding of Yorkshire Council v KMG SICAV-SIF-GB Strategic Land Fund [2025] EWCA Civ 1137, confirming that a “dedicated fund” of a Luxembourg specialised investment company was not an “unregistered company” within the meaning of section 220 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”), and therefore could not be wound up by the court under section 221 of the Act.
On 3 September 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in East Riding of Yorkshire Council v KMG SICAV-SIF-GB Strategic Land Fund [2025] EWCA Civ 1137, confirming that a “dedicated fund” of a Luxembourg specialised investment company was not an “unregistered company” within the meaning of section 220 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”), and therefore could not be wound up by the court under section 221 of the Act.
How to bring a dissolved company back to life through administrative or court restoration.
When a company is dissolved or struck off the Register of Companies it ceases to exist. Property belonging to the dissolved company vests in the Crown to be disposed of. However, that is not always the end of the matter and in certain circumstances it is possible to restore a company to the Register.
Why restore a company?
Introduction
On 18 September 2025, the Chancellor of the High Court, the Rt. Hon. Sir Julian Flaux announced the long-awaited publication of the updated Practice Statement in relation to schemes of arrangement and restructuring plans (the "New Practice Statement"). Revision of the existing Practice Statement was, in large part, driven by the rise in contested schemes and restructuring plans which, in turn, has put significant pressure on the Court system.
In a significant further application of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Adler, Thames Water and Petrofac, the High Court declined to sanction a cross-class cram down restructuring plan proposed by Waldorf Production UK Plc.
In a significant follow-on judgment the Court of Appeal has both clarified and moved beyond the High Court’s approach to the ‘no worse off’ test, but ultimately set aside the sanction of Petrofac’s proposed restructuring plans on fairness grounds.
The Supreme Court has handed down a decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and othersv Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2025] UKSC 18, which clarifies the parties who ar
On 7 May 2025, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) handed down a judgment providing useful guidance on the meaning of “fraudulent trading” within s.213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Insolvency Act) and how the test in s.32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 (Limitation Act) operates, in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2025] UKSC 18 (Bilta). In this article, we give a brief summary of the facts, issues and rulings in the judgment and its practical implications for Hong Kong’s corporate insolvency regime.
Background