In a recent case, the High Court has had one of its first opportunities to consider BTI v Sequana [2022] UKSC 25 (see our previous update here), in which the Supreme Court gave important guidance on the existence and scope of the duty of company directors to have regard to the interests of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”, which arises in an insolvency scenario).

In the landmark judgment by Linda Chan J in Re Gatecoin Ltd (in liquidation) [2023] HKCFI 914, the Court of First Instance held that cryptocurrencies were property under Hong Kong law capable of being held for distribution to creditors (or beneficiaries if they were trust assets) for the purposes of administrating an insolvent estate. In this article, the authors consider the Court’s ruling and its wider implications for the insolvency regime in Hong Kong, focusing on fraud claims and reviewable transactions in the cryptocurrency context.

The High Court has held that certain assets sold by a company around the time of its administration were subject to a fixed charge rather than a floating charge and as such, the sale proceeds were not to be distributed to preferential creditors or unsecured creditors: Avanti Communications Ltd, Re [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch).

In the recent case of Avanti Communications Limited (in administration) [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch), the High Court revisited the perpetually knotty question: what level of control is necessary for a charge over assets to take effect as a fixed, rather than floating, charge?

The decisions in Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton [2023] HCA 1 and Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 have been viewed as conflicting for liquidators. In this week’s TGIF, we examine these proceedings and why the decisions benefit both liquidators and creditors.

Key takeaways

One year ago, we wrote that, in early 2021, it was widely anticipated that the unprecedented pressure the COVID-19 pandemic brought to bear on the U.S. economy would lead to a boom in corporate bankruptcy filings. That boom never materialized. Instead, business bankruptcy filings in the U.S. plummeted in 2021. That trend continued until the last quarter of 2022.

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession to sell assets of the bankruptcy estate "free and clear" of "any interest in property" asserted by a non-debtor is an important tool designed to maximize the value of the estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Illinois recently examined whether such interests include "successor liability" claims that might otherwise be asserted against the purchaser of a debtor's assets. In In re Norrenberns Foods, Inc., 642 B.R. 825 (Bankr. S.D. Ill.

The purchase and sale of assets by a debtor is governed by Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. So-called “363 sales” are typically attractive from a buyer’s perspective (and may be a primary reason for a bankruptcy filing). Perhaps the most important benefit afforded to buyers in 363 sales is the ability to acquire assets “free and clear” of claims and interests of third parties.

Welcome to the sixth edition of our quarterly disputes newsletter, which covers key developments in the dispute resolution world over the last three months or so.

In its recent decision in Morton as Liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Metal Manufacturers Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 228, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (the Court) held that statutory set-off, under section 553C(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (theAct), is not available to a creditor in respect of a liquidator’s claim against that creditor for the recovery of an unfair preference under s 588FA of the Act.