What happens to a company at the end of an administration is a question that probably only keeps insolvency anoraks up at night.

There are a limited number of potential options, with the rescue of the company as a going concern being the number one objective to which all administrators aspire. However, more often than not, an administration will end with the company entering liquidation or, where the company has no property to permit a distribution to creditors, the dissolution of the company.

Hellard & others -v- OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank (in liquidation) & others [202] EWHC 1783 (Ch)

In dealing with whether trustees in bankruptcy might potentially be breaching UK sanctions legislation by allowing Russian creditors to participate in UK liquidation proceedings, the Court has considered recent authorities on whether a designated person can be said to directly or indirectly own or control an entity and has offered its own perspective on how the relevant wording in the legislation should be construed.

The background facts

Another groundbreaking judgment from the ADGM Courts in the NMC matter 📢🇦🇪👨🏻⚖️ and another example of the ADGM Courts drawing important parallels between ADGM and English law.

English proceedings re NMC Health Plc are also ongoing. In his judgment at CFI on 8 July 2024, Sir Justice Andrew Smith found that:

1. The ADGM Courts can make an order in respect of the fraudulent carrying on of the business of a company prior to the time at which that company was continued in the ADGM.

The judgment of Nicholas Thompsell, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, in Hellard & Ors v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank & Ors [2024] EWHC 1783 (Ch) deals with three questions raised by an application of the trustees in bankruptcy of Anatoly Leonidovich Motylev for directions under s 303(2) Insolvency Act 1986:

(1) Should the trustees treat certain Russian bank creditors as being caught by the sanctions imposed under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019?

The Privy Council has recently delivered a landmark judgment on the interplay between arbitration agreements and winding up petitions. The Board held that the English case of Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1575; Ch 589, which had adopted a pro-arbitration approach to stay or dismiss winding up petitions based on debts covered by arbitration agreements, even if the debts were not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds was wrongly decided.

Certain amendments to the reckless trading provisions of section 610 of the Companies Act 2014 contained in the Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2024Opens in new window (the “Act”) came into force on 1 July 2024 (pursuant to S.I. 303 of 2024).

In March 2015 the major high street retailer British Home Stores (BHS) was acquired for £1 by Retail Acquisitions Limited (RAL), a company owned by Mr Dominic Chappell. Mr Chappell became a director of the BHS entities upon completion of the purchase, together with three other individuals.

Although an insolvency case, the judgment of His Honour Judge Paul Matthews, sitting as a High Court Judge, in Broom v Aguilar [2024] EWHC 1764 (Ch) deals with a service issue of more general importance.

Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) (Appellant) v Halimeda International Ltd (Respondent) (Virgin Islands) [2024] UKPC 16

Court awards first security for costs order in respect of a challenge to a restructuring plan.

Key takeaways

The High Court has for the first time awarded security for costs in respect of a challenge to a proposed English restructuring plan.¹