With the cost-of-living crisis and a possible recession facing the UK economy, it is not surprising that government statistics show insolvencies are rising significantly, with a substantial increase on pre-pandemic levels, and up to 80% higher than the previous 12-month period.

An emerging trend within insolvencies is the recovery of crypto assets, whether the businesses are within the crypto sector, or whether it is any other entity holding value in cryptocurrencies.

With an increased number of businesses experiencing financial difficulties given rising inflation, the weaker pound and interest rate increases, debt restructurings are becoming, and are expected to continue to become, more common.

Such restructurings are often achieved by a third-party lender releasing or materially amending all or part of its debt, which would result in taxable income arising to a UK corporate borrower unless a relevant exemption applies.

Where an individual is both a corporate director and a shareholder, can they be held personally liable for stripping value from a corporation to defeat corporate creditors? “Yes”, according to the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s recent decision in FNF Enterprises Inc. v. Wag and Train Inc, 2023 ONCA 92. But what is the legal basis for imposing personal liability for the corporation’s obligations?

Dispute Resolution analysis: A Court, cost-managing a claim under s423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has strongly criticised the level of anticipated costs reflected in cost budgets and have made an order reflecting the view formed.

Lemos and ors v Church Bay Trust Company Limited [2023] EWHC 157 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

The Irish courts have long recognised the principle that directors of companies that are insolvent must have regard to the interests of the creditors of the company as a matter of Common Law.

The European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (the "Regulations"), which were signed into law last year, have reinforced and refined this principle in certain respects.

This article analyses the decision of Ball J in Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (KCC) v Richard Crookes Construction Pty Ltd (RCC); in the matter of Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 99 and considers the ramifications for the scope of section 32B of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (SOP Act).

Der BGH hat mit Entscheidung vom 27. Oktober 2022 (IX ZR 145/21) eine langwährende, insolvenzrechtliche Streitigkeit entschieden. In seiner Entscheidung nahm der BGH an, dass sich das Verwertungsrecht des Insolvenzverwalters nach § 166 InsO nicht auf sonstige Rechte erstreckt. Dies legt einen lange bestehenden und intensiv geführten Streit bei, ob sich das Verwertungsrecht neben beweglichen Sachen im Besitz des Verwalters und abgetretenen Forderungen auch auf sonstige Rechte wie insbesondere verpfändete Gesellschaftsanteile oder abgetretene oder verpfändete IP-Rechte erstreckt.

This note aims to provide brief and practical answers to common questions on the law of assignment in English law finance transactions.

1. Are all notified assignments legal assignments?

In its decision of October 27, 2022 (IX ZR 145/21), the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled on a long-running dispute under German insolvency law. In its decision, the Court assumed that the insolvency administrator's right of realization under section 166 German Insolvency Code (InsO) does not extend to other rights.

Here’s a hard-knocks rule:

• When you can’t or won’t explain the true reason for taking a position in negotiations or litigation, distrust and suspicion of the worst-possible motives will follow.

An Exhibit A for this rule is an opinion issued February 9, 2023, in In re Heaven’s Landing, LLC, Case No. 20-21350, Northern Georgia Bankruptcy Court (Doc. 145).

Here are illustrative statements from that opinion: