Can section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986 serve as a fast-track route for administrators to secure vacant possession of property from trespassers? That was the question before the High Court in the recent case of Maher v Investalet Ltd [2025] EWHC 3133 (Ch).
The facts
Usually, a Fixed Charge Receiver will not be liable to pay business rates. However, there are some exceptions and in some important areas the law is unclear.
Occupied Property: Limited Exposure
To be liable for business rates a party must be in occupation of the Property. This is a matter of fact and degree. Generally, the position is clear although there can be issues for example where more than one party is entitled to occupation.
The University of Georgia, through the University’s athletic association (UGAA), is seeking damages totaling $390,000 against a former football player, Damon Wilson II, after he elected to transfer to Missouri following the 2024 season. The demand stems from a clause in Wilson’s NIL contract that required him to forfeit the balance of his agreement if he transferred to another school.
Creditors’ statutory demands are a very powerful, and commonly used weapon by creditors. They are cheap and easy to issue, and the consequences for not dealing with one appropriately can be extremely serious – i.e. liquidation.
Because of this, the courts enforce strict compliance with the requirements imposed on a party seeking to rely on one, so creditors should ensure they are up to date on those requirements.
An insolvency practitioner (IP) can pursue a wide range of claims when appointed as the administrator or liquidator of a company.
These include claims that already existed at the point that the company entered an insolvency process (Pre-existing Company Claims), and ones that arise on insolvency (IP Claims see below).
An IP pursues Pre-existing Company Claims as agent for and in the name of the company, and these types of claims typically include claims for debt, breach of contract, breach of duty or recovery of property.
It has recently been reported in the press that the project company for England’s largest Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract is going into liquidation, affecting 88 schools in Stoke-on-Trent.
重整投资作为困境企业涅槃的黄金通道，既承载着产业资本的战略野心，也考验着投资人的专业智慧。当前，市场面临着诸多变革：新“国九条”重塑资本市场生态，最高院与证监会联合发文重构上市公司重整规则，房企纾困与保交楼政策密集落地。监管趋严与市场出清双重压力下，重整投资的机遇与挑战并存。
汉坤破产与重组业务团队深耕重整投资领域，作为管理人和投资人顾问亲历多起重大重整案件，现以101个真实场景中的典型问题为切口，对法律规则进行穿透式解读，对实务问题提出针对性策略，逐层拆解重整投资的隐秘角落。
敬请关注，共探破局之道，共同把握重整浪潮中的确定性机遇。
今日推出第十三期：《上市公司重整篇（中）》。为您介绍投资实践中可能遇到的实施主体变更、出资人权益调整、投资条件/承诺等问题。
上市公司重整篇（中）
一、上市公司重整投资实施主体的变更或指定？
An assignment for benefit of creditors (an “ABC”) under the common law is an out-of-court tool for liquidating a business debtor’s assets in an efficient and credible manner.
Such a common law tool has been used, effectively and frequently, for many years in such states as Illinois and California.
Despite the out-of-court nature of an ABC under the common law, courts can still be enlisted to resolve discrete issues that may arise. Here is an example of a court’s involvement, within an ABC under the common law, to resolve an issue of compensation for the ABC assignee: