簡介

英國和香港的法例均規定，債權人只可以就其應獲支付的算定金額提出破產呈請，但相關法例條文並無界定何謂「算定金額」（liquidated sum）。在Re Dusoruth (a bankrupt) Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 2346 (Ch) 一案中，英格蘭及威爾斯商業及財產法庭（「法院」）澄清，復還不當得利的申索不論如何確切，仍不能被視為算定金額，因此不能成為破產呈請的依據。

背景

申請人是一名商人，亦是在英國、英屬維爾京群島及馬爾他等多個司法管轄區註冊的多間公司的最終擁有人。他以其中一家公司進行欺詐，遊說富戶投資，然後透過無抵押貸款將資金轉移到他控制的其他公司。申請人被他其中一間正在清盤的公司（「答辯人」）基於以下債務提出破產呈請（「該破產呈請」），並於2020年11月被判定破產：

1.從答辯人的銀行帳戶支付，用於清償申請人的個人信用卡帳單的361,899.73歐元；及

BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & Others [2022] UKSC 25

Factual Background

1. In December 2008 and May 2009, the directors of a UK limited company, known as Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (“AWA”) distributed dividends to its parent company and sole shareholder, the defendant in the claim, Sequana SA (“Sequana”). The dividend payment in May 2009 was just over £119m.

Following the important decision in Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2022] (see our summary here), LDC (Portfolio One) Ltd v George Downing Construction

This half-yearly update summarises significant insurance coverage cases in the English courts in the second half of 2022 concerning Covid-19 business interruption insurance, jurisdiction and rights against insurers of insolvent companies.

Significant Insurance Coverage Cases in H2 2022

Covid-19 BI Cases:

Cryptocurrency is a hot topic in the legal industry and one with which the legal world is really just starting to grapple. This is ever more prevalent with a number of recent high-profile crypto insolvencies including Three Arrows Capital, Celsius Network and FTX.

In our latest report, Partners Alastair Massey and Phil Reynolds examine the retail landscape

Over one in five (22%) retail businesses in the UK aren’t confident of trading through to the end of 2023, according to new research published in our retail report.

Dispute Resolution analysis: When the owners and controllers of a company refused to identify the recipient of payments made out of the company during the course of arbitration proceedings, their defence to a claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was struck out and judgment was entered against them.

Integral Petroleum SA v Pretrogat FZE and ors [2023] EWHC 44 (Comm)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Following the sanctioning of the Good Box restructuring plan (RP) it seems the answer is yes. This might sound surprising to those familiar with schemes of arrangement, because that outcome is at odds with the long-standing decision in Re Savoy Hotels.

For those less familiar with schemes and scheme case law, the court declined to sanction the Savoy scheme because the company did not approve it, consequently the judge found that the court had no jurisdiction to sanction it.

NGI Systems & Solutions Ltd v The Good Box Co Labs Ltd [2023] EWHC 274 (Ch) records the court’s reasons for sanctioning a restructuring plan made between the defendant company, The Good Box Co Labs Limited, its members, and separate classes of its creditors pursuant to section 901F Companies Act 2006. It also deals with other matters arising out of the company’s administration.

Nicola Sharp considers the recent appeal decision in Tradition Financial Services Ltd vBilta (UK) Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ, and the ways in which it affects the definition of fraudulent trading.