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.

Admission de l’inscription définitive d’une hypothèque judiciaire provisoire malgré la liquidation judiciaire

Cass. Com, 3 mai 2016, n°14-21.556

Aux termes d’un arrêt de principe, la Cour de cassation entérine et confirme la possibilité pour le créancier disposant d’une hypothèque judiciaire provisoire, inscrite avant le jugement d’ouverture, de l’inscrire définitivement après la liquidation judiciaire du débiteur.

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the status of contingent assets within the balance sheet test for insolvency in the context of a company’s inability to pay its debts. Under Section 123 Insolvency Act 1986, a company is deemed unable to pay its debts if its assets are less than its liabilities including contingent liabilities but nothing is said about the status of contingent assets.

In Minor Hotel Group MEA DMCC v Dymant & Anor [2022] EWHC 340 (Ch), is the first reported High Court decision considering a contested moratorium since the new Part A1 moratorium ("moratorium") was introduced in 2020, in which the monitors successfully opposed an application by the parent company's secured creditor to remove the monitors and end the moratorium.

Throughout the pandemic we have seen a succession of temporary practice directions, enabling practitioners to deal with the swearing of notices of intention (NOI) and notices of appointment (NOA) of administrators remotely, as well as answering a question which the judiciary had grappled with several times – when does a notice of intention or notice of appointment come into effect if filed outside of court hours?

CVA challenges have been in the spotlight recently and the story continues with Nero Holdings Ltd v Young in which the court considered an application to strike out a CVA challenge claim. Although there is nothing ground-breaking in the court’s reasoning to dismiss the strike out/summary judgment application, its detailed reasoning will offer some helpful guidance and assistance to those involved in these applications.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduced a number of temporary changes to UK insolvency laws last year. Those changes, together with other measures such as the moratorium on forfeiture proceedings have recently been extended, we assume, to avoid the perceived cliff edge of insolvencies that might follow if such measures are brought to an end abruptly.

The Pensions Schemes Act received Royal Assent yesterday (11 February).

For those involved in restructuring it is important to be aware that the Act introduces new offences, carrying hefty fines and the possibility of imprisonment that apply to “any person”. Given the wide scope of the drafting the new offences could capture directors, insolvency practitioners, lenders and other professional advisors commonly involved in a restructuring whose only defence to such a claim is that they acted with “reasonable excuse” – a term not defined in the legislation.

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-19.

The Australian federal government has continued introducing temporary and potentially permanent insolvency law reforms intended to assist the economic repair efforts during, and following, the pandemic. In the latest development, which occurred in somewhat strange circumstances, the federal government has announced that it will shortly introduce new laws into parliament, which are intended to reduce complexity, time and the costs for small businesses to restructure their financial affairs.