In brief

In Avanti Communications Ltd [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch), the English court revisited the vexed issue of fixed and floating charges. Notably, it is the first significant case since the landmark decision in Re Spectrum Plus Ltd [2005] UKHL 41 to do so.

The distinction between fixed and floating charges is economically important and affects the recoveries a secured creditor may expect to receive in an insolvent liquidation of the security provider.

In the recent case of Re Avanti Communications Limited (in administration) (Re Avanti), the court considered the nature of fixed and floating charges. Whether a charge is fixed or floating has implications for both lenders and administrators in terms of determining to what extent a chargor can recover from the charged assets and to what extent a borrower can deal with its assets.

Background of case:

Key Takeaways

ne in three of us own crypto currencies, crypto ownership is estimated to have doubled in the UK last year – and two of the world’s biggest crypto exchanges face lawsuits from the securities regulator, the SEC, in the US. Three statistics from the FT this week that put warnings from the UK’s financial regulator – that crypto is largely unregulated and high risk, and investors should be prepared to lose all their money – into context. The FCA noted that it is up to consumers to decide whether to buy crypto, but that many regret making a hasty decision.

The curiosity with claims based on transactions defrauding creditors is that a transaction can fall within its scope when a debtor is solvent and may never ultimately enter an insolvency process, and there is no requirement of fraud. Such claims fall under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the act), and do require a debtor to have entered into a transaction at an undervalue (drawing on claims under section 238 and 339 of the act, in corporate and personal insolvency respectively) with the intention of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors.

Friday's Business section of The Times made interesting reading to us debt finance nerds.

In the recent case of Re JD Group Ltd in liquidation; Bhatia v Purkiss (as liquidator of JD Group Ltd) a company director appealed a decision that he was liable for VAT fraud.

Background

Mr Bhatia was the sole director of a company trading in mobile phones. He was sent a HMRC notice explaining the risks of mobile phone trading and liability for involvement in VAT fraud.

The English tax authority, HMRC, has successfully challenged the restructuring plans put forward by The Great Annual Savings Company Limited (GAS) and Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth).

This is the first time that HMRC has actively challenged restructuring plans at the sanction hearing. The key takeaways from the judgments:

Nasmyth

Modular construction has been heralded for several years now as a construction methodology that saves time, reduces waste and minimises cost. It is therefore unsurprising that modular construction forms part of the various "modern methods of construction" that are now being encouraged by the UK Government. Use of modular construction can range from isolated elements like bathroom pods to where the majority of the building is comprised of modules and is commonly encountered in housing, student accommodation and hotels.

The English High Court has sanctioned a restructuring plan in respect of EUR 3.2 billion of bonds issued by the German real estate business, Adler Group. The main objective of the plan was to avoid Adler's imminent insolvency by facilitating access to EUR 937.5 million of new money funding and thereby providing a stable platform from which Adler Group can pursue a solvent wind-down by asset sales over time in recovered market conditions. This represents a novel use of the restructuring plan procedure, which has previously been seen exclusively as a corporate 'rescue' tool.