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
Overview
If the overarching theme of 2024 was continued uncertainty (Ten litigation trends to watch for 2024), 2025 already looks set to be another unpredictable year. Various doom-laden economic forecasts indicate that 2025 will be a challenging year for the UK economy.
- In one of the most high-profile and hotly-watched cases in the London restructuring market, on 18 February 2025, the English High Court approved the restructuring plan proposed by Thames Water.
- The Court gave permission to appeal the Court’s order to a group of challenging junior creditors, a subordinated creditor and Liberal Democrat MP Charlie Maynard, with the Court of Appeal due to sit from 11 to 13 March 2025.
Macfarlanes and Burness Paull recently advised Dobbies Garden Centres, the UK’s largest operator of garden centres, on its restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, which was approved by Lord Braid in the Court of Session in Scotland on 9 December 2024.
In this first of a series of articles looking at current issues and recent case law in the world of distressed PFI/PPP projects, we consider the recent outcome of the Tameside Hospital dispute, and what pointers can be taken from it which may help avoid or resolve disputes in future so that distressed projects can get back on track. This is a tale of disagreement, adjudication, threats of insolvency, Court proceedings and – ultimately – a settlement which may offer a useful benchmark to which other troubled projects can have regard.
In 2023 we published 10 do’s and don’ts for restructuring plans, find our previous article available here. Following on from our initial article we have outlined five more do’s and don’ts reflecting the development of restructuring plans in 2024.
Starting life as a market trader, Balvinder Shergill went on to run a number of companies, mostly in the furniture business. Two of his early companies used the trading style Houghton Furnishing. After they stopped doing business, Mr Shergill went on to become involved as a director in five other companies.
The role and duties of company directors are well established in English law through the Companies Act and case law. These principles are widely applied in many jurisdictions, including the Bahamas, where UK cases about directors’ liability and related issues carry considerable weight.
In Harrington v Purdue Pharma,1 the United States Supreme Court held that so-called “non-consensual third-party releases” were not permitted in restructuring plans proposed under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. A “third-party release” arises where creditors are asked to vote on a restructuring plan or scheme which not only proposes to release the debtor company (i.e. the company that has petitioned for bankruptcy or is proposing the scheme) from all liability but to also release other third parties from any associated liability.