Re Kirkham International Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) [2023] SGHC 19 (Kirkham) has important practical implications for liquidators. The General Division of the High Court (High Court) held that a liquidator’s appointment of solicitors, when approval is required under section 144 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA), cannot be retrospectively authorised.

Background

Introduction

It seems like a week hasn't passed recently without some new global macro shock hitting our screens, resulting in the economic rollercoaster ride on which we find ourselves.

At the end of February 2023, the High Court sanctioned seven restructuring plans for companies in the Lifeways group. Lifeways is a group providing supported living and specialist residential, support and care services at properties throughout the UK.

The case raised several interesting aspects, particularly in relation to the conduct of creditor meetings for a restructuring plan where cross class cram down is sought, and whether there is a read across from scheme case law on this issue.

The Part 26A Restructuring Plan (“RP”) is a relatively new addition to the English insolvency regime; despite this, the flexibility it provides to both distressed companies and their creditors has made it an important and attractive option. The recent administration of GoodBox Co Labs Limited (“GoodBox”) only further highlights this flexibility, providing ground-breaking precedent for creditor‑led RPs and the necessity of company consent.

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on the case of Rakusen v Jepsen on 1 March 2023, deciding that rent repayment orders cannot be made against superior landlords.

The case considered whether rent repayment orders (RROs) under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, could be made against immediate landlords only, or whether superior landlords are also liable. 

简介

英国和香港的法例均规定，债权人只可以就其应获支付的算定金额提出破产呈请，但相关法例条文并无界定何谓「算定金额」（liquidated sum）。在Re Dusoruth (a bankrupt) Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 2346 (Ch) 一案中，英格兰及威尔斯商业及财产法庭（「法院」）澄清，复还不当得利的申索不论如何确切，仍不能被视为算定金额，因此不能成为破产呈请的依据。

背景

申请人是一名商人，亦是在英国、英属维尔京群岛及马尔他等多个司法管辖区注册的多间公司的最终拥有人。他以其中一家公司进行欺诈，游说富户投资，然后透过无抵押贷款将资金转移到他控制的其他公司。申请人被他其中一间正在清盘的公司（「答辩人」）基于以下债务提出破产呈请（「该破产呈请」），并于2020年11月被判定破产：

1.从答辩人的银行帐户支付，用于清偿申请人的个人信用卡帐单的361,899.73欧元；及

The Federal Court of Australia (Court) has handed down the first reported decision on the ipso facto stay provisions contained in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).

簡介

英國和香港的法例均規定，債權人只可以就其應獲支付的算定金額提出破產呈請，但相關法例條文並無界定何謂「算定金額」（liquidated sum）。在Re Dusoruth (a bankrupt) Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 2346 (Ch) 一案中，英格蘭及威爾斯商業及財產法庭（「法院」）澄清，復還不當得利的申索不論如何確切，仍不能被視為算定金額，因此不能成為破產呈請的依據。

背景

申請人是一名商人，亦是在英國、英屬維爾京群島及馬爾他等多個司法管轄區註冊的多間公司的最終擁有人。他以其中一家公司進行欺詐，遊說富戶投資，然後透過無抵押貸款將資金轉移到他控制的其他公司。申請人被他其中一間正在清盤的公司（「答辯人」）基於以下債務提出破產呈請（「該破產呈請」），並於2020年11月被判定破產：

1.從答辯人的銀行帳戶支付，用於清償申請人的個人信用卡帳單的361,899.73歐元；及

Introduction

The long-standing uncertainty about the availability of statutory set-off to unfair preference claims has finally been determined by the High Court.  The Court in Metal Manufactures Pty Ltd v Morton unanimously found that section 553C set-off is not available to creditors that are found to have received an unfair preference. 

The decision provides much need certainty to liquidators and creditors alike.

The Case