The recent Court of Appeal case of JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Limited v. Davis Haulage Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 267 has set out the importance of there being a settled intention to enter administration and indicated that this is a pre-requisite to an out of court appointment being validly made.

Apport de la loi de modernisation de la justice du XXIe siècle

In an address last week to the Insolvency Lawyers Association, Sir Geoffrey Vos,

the new Chancellor of the High Court, looked at the future for Insolvency and Business Litigation in London, especially after Brexit.

Peabody Energy Corporation is one of the biggest energy companies in the world. Its main business is coal mining and it conducts extensive operations in the United States and in Australia. Peabody had been hit by declining coal prices both for thermal coal and also for metallurgical coal used for steel making, especially due to the declining demand from China.

Last week this author delved into what has become known as the “Texas Two-Step,” the arguments for and against its permissibility and the broader implications for the bankruptcy system.

The Australian government has taken swift action to enact new legislation that significantly changes the insolvency laws relevant to all business as a result of the ongoing developments related to COVID-1

The case of Re NMUL Realisations Limited (in administration) [2021] EWHC 94 (Ch) follows in the footsteps of the case of Re Tokenhouse VB Limited [2020] EWHC 3171 (Ch),where the Court considered whether a charge-holder’s failure to give notice of their intention to appoint administrators invalidates the appointment (see our previous blog here).

In the course of antecedent transaction proceedings, particularly for unfair preferences, arguably the most contentious and critical question to be determined is the date of insolvency. Although that question predominantly involves an accounting exercise, it also includes an assessment of the commercial, financial and trading realities of the relevant company and a consideration of legal principles.

In Marex Financial Ltd v Sevilleja [2020] UKSC 31, the UK Supreme Court has opened the way for a judgment creditor to sue a controller of companies who denuded the companies and placed them in liquidation to defeat the creditor's enforcement of a US$5 million judgment. The Court of Appeal had ruled that the creditor was caught by the so-called "reflective principle" that prevents shareholders recovering losses suffered in common with the company. Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia and other common law jurisdictions are almost certain to follow suit.

Our recent blog discussed the decision in Re Carluccio’s Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 88D (Ch) where the Court considered whether administrators would “adopt” the employment contracts of employees they furloughed after the 14 day grace period.