The UK water industry is rarely out of the headlines, whether for operational performance issues or reports of perpetual financial distress. It may therefore be more than a coincidence that the UK government has chosen now to introduce new rules for the special administration regime (SAR) that applies to water companies.

This article will look at the recent decision of David Doyle J in In the Matter of HQP Corporation Limited (in Official Liquidation) (7 July 2023) and its effect on the ability of investors to recover damages from a company in which they have acquired shares as a result of a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Introduction

The case involved an application by liquidators for direction in relation to three issues in the winding up of the Company:

Misled or defrauded shareholders may rank equally with creditors in liquidations of insolvent funds

In brief

In Avanti Communications Ltd [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch), the English court revisited the vexed issue of fixed and floating charges. Notably, it is the first significant case since the landmark decision in Re Spectrum Plus Ltd [2005] UKHL 41 to do so.

The distinction between fixed and floating charges is economically important and affects the recoveries a secured creditor may expect to receive in an insolvent liquidation of the security provider.

In the recent case of Re Avanti Communications Ltd (In Administration)¹, the High Court considered whether charges granted by a satellite business over certain equipment and intangible assets (the Relevant Assets) were fixed or floating.

In a decision likely to be welcomed by both debtors and lenders, the High Court has held that a charge granted by Avanti Communications Limited (“Avanti”) was properly characterised as a fixed charge (rather than a floating charge) notwithstanding that the chargor retained an element of control over the charged assets. A key plank of the decision was that the relevant assets were not ‘fluctuating assets’ or ‘stock in trade’ that the chargor might be expected to dispose of in the ordinary course of its business.

As the economic headwinds indicate that borrowers will continue to face financial pressures in 2023 and beyond, lenders are seeking ways to exercise more leverage as “covenant-lite” facilities prevail. Material adverse change clauses in finance documents UK and US perspective By Olga Galazoula, Jacques McChesney and Charlotte Harvey 4 FUNDS INSIDER FUNDS INSIDER 5 The event relied upon by the lender to enforce this clause was the making of an arbitration award that could potentially result in significant damages being awarded against the borrower.

In the October 2021 edition of IBA Insolvency and Restructuring International, Peter Hayden and Jonathan Moffatt explain recent decisions in the UK and the Cayman Islands on the narrowing of the rule in Prudential and its implications for shareholders and creditors considering litigation.

Introduction

The UK Government has published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill) that proposes to make both temporary and permanent changes to UK insolvency laws.

As part of these measures, new provisions will be inserted into existing legislation to introduce a new debtor-inpossession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern. This alert explores the impact of these moratorium measures on secured lenders, with a particular focus on the impact on qualifying floating charge holders (QFCH).

On 12 May 2021, The Rating (Coronavirus) and Director Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill was introduced to Parliament.

The Bill passed through the Commons stages unaltered and recently passed the Committee stage at the House of Lords on 10 November 2021. The Report stage will be taking place on 1 December 2021.

Purpose of the Bill