Abigal Boura v Lyhfl decision

1. The High Court considered whether one director has standing to apply to court for the appointment of an administrator in circumstances where there is no majority of the board and no valid resolution of the board in favour of the application. Abigal Boura v Lyhfl Limited [2023] EWHC 2585 (Ch)(19 October 2023).

Analysis

Over the decade since the implementation of the costs reforms proposed in Lord Jackson's Review of Civil Litigation Costs, lawyers and litigants have become accustomed to the courts actively managing the costs of disputes with a value up to £10 million. But the court also retains a discretion to apply the costs management regime in cases even above this level.

As the nights draw in and the new year approaches, we take stock of the state of play for European restructuring and look ahead at potential trends for 2024.

Completion of legal reforms

Commonwealth of Australia v Tonks [2023] NSWCA 285

In this decision, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of NSW considered the interplay between the priority regimes under ss 556 and 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) in resolving a contest between a liquidator’s claim for remuneration and the entitlements of former employees to be paid out of circulating assets.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance decision of Justice Black in finding that:

The Companies (Amendment) Bill 2023 (“Bill”) was passed by the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives) of the Malaysian Parliament on 28 November 2023. It will be tabled before the Dewan Negara (Senate) and if passed, will be presented for Royal Assent and be gazetted into law.

Introducción

En las píldoras concursales de este mes destacamos:

Introduction

On 13 October 2023, the Insolvency Service (IS), acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, discontinued the disqualification proceedings which it had initiated against five former non-executive directors (NEDs) of Carillion plc, the construction and outsourcing giant that collapsed into liquidation in 2018.

In this eleventh edition of the Going concerns, we touch upon the clarity provided by the Singapore Court of Appeal in the recognition of foreign solvent liquidations in Singapore, a potential new tool against debtors defrauding creditors, and an update on the sanction of an administrative convenience class in the Singapore High Court.

We hope you enjoyed this edition of the Going concerns and we look forward to your continued support in the coming editions of the same. As usual, please feel free to contact us should you like to learn more on any topic.

Content

In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).