Company directors owe several fiduciary duties, one of which is to act in the best interest of shareholders. But to what extent does that duty to shareholders apply in the context of the financial health of the company? The award-winning commercial and litigation lawyers at ParrisWhittaker are experienced in advising company directors on their duties, including where there are concerns around the lawfulness of paying dividends.

On the 9 of March earlier this year, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in the UK dismissed an appeal and confirmed that when an electronic money institution (“EMI”) is placed into administration, it was not necessary to impose a statutory trust in order to fulfil the purposes of the safeguarding provisions under EMD (Electronic Money Directive 2009/110) and PSDII (Payment Services Directive 2015/2366) considering that the spirit of both Directives was solely to preserve the sums paid by the EMI’s customers in the case of insolvency and against its other creditors.

Further to sanction of the DeepOcean restructuring plans on 13 January 2021, on 28 January 2021 Mr Justice Trower (Trower, J) handed down his judgment setting out why – for the first time – the court had exercised its discretion to sanction a restructuring plan in the face of a dissenting class of creditors.

In Company Law the will of the majority shareholders usually wins out. This is because the majority tend to be in possession of the most company capital. As such, it is the majority who “should” triumph when it comes to managing the company’s direction. Indeed, the rights of minority shareholders set out in the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”) are small in number. They include:

There have been some very gloomy stories in the press over the last week or so about rising company insolvency rates. All rather unwelcome during the season of goodwill.

Everyone knows that British businesses are facing a hugely difficult time with challenges coming from all directions – including high energy bills, rising interest rates, strikes, geopolitical uncertainty etc. etc.

But amidst the gloom there are some positives. For example:

We have identified four judgments from 2022 which are significant for those in the private equity sector and may have particular relevance for sponsors, shareholders, management teams and/or appointees to boards. In this overview we summarise the key points and some of the practical implications.

The decisions we address are:

The UK Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Appellant)v HSBC Bank PLC (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 34, striking out a significant claim (£116m) for breach of the Quincecare duty on the grounds that the claimant had suffered no loss.

In times of economic uncertainty, fraud typically increases. And these are certainly economically uncertain times. Fraud has been on the rise over recent years and that trend is set to continue. The motivation and opportunity to commit fraud increases as financial pressures loom over individuals and businesses. We are also set to see a continued increase in insolvencies as the impact of the pandemic and other global events set in. The appointment of insolvency practitioners means frauds which might have otherwise continued or remained concealed are more likely to be uncovered.

In this client alert we set out some of the key lessons from the recent judgment in ABT Auto Investments Ltd v Aapico Investment Pte Ltd [2022] EWHC 2839 (Comm), which considers the validity of appropriation as an enforcement power pursuant to Regulation 17 of the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No. 2) Regulations 2003 (“FCARs”), the duty imposed on a collateral-taker by Regulation 18 of the FCARs in connection with the valuation of a collateral subject to appropriation, and provides useful guidance on what is “commercially reasonable” in this context.

This article will discuss whether or not a winding-up petition or bankruptcy petition can be based upon a liquidated amount of crypto which is due and payable by one party to another (a crypto-debt).

An example of such a case could be where party A agrees to transfer 100 widgets to party B in exchange for five bitcoin. Assume party A delivers the widgets, and party B accepts receipt and raises no issue with the widgets, and does not dispute their liability to transfer five bitcoin to party B.