Key developments of interest over the last month include: IOSCO publishing its final Policy Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset (CDA) Markets; the UK government publishing a response to its previous consultation and call for evidence on proposals for the future financial services regulatory regime for digital assets as well as the FCA and Bank of England publishing proposals on the UK stablecoins regulatory regime; the European Parliament's ECON Committee publishing draft reports on the proposed PSD3 and Payment Services Regulation; and the UK government publishing a Future of Paym

The Supreme Court recently considered whether administrators of a company can be prosecuted for a failure to provide notice to the Secretary of State, using form HR1, of proposed collective redundancies.

They found that for the purposes of interpreting the relevant section of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 ("TULRCA"), administrators were not an "officer" and so were not subject to the obligation to file an HR1. This decision, however, has the potential to impact much wider than the world of redundancies.  

An analysis of recent statistics show what the Insolvency and Tax Disputes teams at Mishcon de Reya have long experienced – that HMRC is not in the habit of overlooking an outstanding debt.

According to the latest data produced by UHY Hacker Young, Pub Insolvencies have risen by 66% in the last year. The impact of such a staggering statistic is that these debts which are owed to our clients become even more unobtainable to collect.

The pot of available funds drops dramatically once the pub business is placed in the official insolvency process. 

The case will be passed to an Official Receiver and on the most part an Insolvency Practitioner is then appointed. 

Mislabelling a debt instrument as a promissory note can result in unintended consequences

Promissory notes and loan notes are often used in group reorganisations to paper a loan relationship, but because the terms are frequently used interchangeably, there is scope for misuse and misunderstanding.

In the recent decision of Ontario Securities Commission v Go-To Developments Holdings Inc et al, 2023 ONSC 5921 (“Go-To Developments”), the Court affirmed a receiver’s ability to control solicitor-client privilege in order to perform their mandate. The Court specifically considered whether a receiver could access email correspondence between the principal of the companies under receivership and other interested parties.

Industry insights 

Following two significant insolvency decisions in the High Court of Australia (Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd and Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton), insolvency professionals and creditors have had to reassess the value and requirements of proof   in unfair preference claim recoveries.

On 30 November the Supreme Court delivered its written judgment dealing with the correct test for insolvency when considering the eligibility of a debtor for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 (as amended).

Background

One of the qualifying criteria for a PIA is that the debtor must demonstrate that the debtor is “insolvent” within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. That provision defines the term as meaning “that the debtor is unable to pay his or her debts in full as they fall due”.

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:

1. INTRODUCTION

On 9 November 2023, a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, while disposing off over 350 writ petitions, in Dilip B. Jiwarajka v. Union of India and Ors. 1 , upheld the constitutional validity of several key provisions [Section 95 to Section 100] of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) pertaining to the insolvency resolution process for individuals and partnership firms.