In Mclean v Trustees of the Bankruptcy Estate of Dent [2016] EWHC 2650, the High Court considered the application of the equitable doctrines of marshalling and subrogation in relation to a fixed charge over (among other things) a dog.

A company and partnership borrowed funds from two sources – Barclays Bank and Lady Morrison. Barclays held, among other things, charges over farms owned by individual partners and an agricultural charge under the Agricultural Credits Act 1928 (UK), including a charge over a dog. Lady Morrison only held charges over the farms.

In Madsen-Ries v Rapid Construction Ltd [2013] NZCA 489, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal concerning a liquidator's attempt to have a payment set aside. 

The High Court of England and Wales has recently grappled with a lacuna in United Kingdom bankruptcy law, namely how the expenses of a trustee in bankruptcy should be dealt with where the bankruptcy order from which he derives his title is successfully overturned on an appeal of which he was not notified? The Court ultimately found that it was within its inherent jurisdiction to hold the bankrupt liable to pay the trustee's reasonable expenses. However the case highlights the gap in the United Kingdom's bankruptcy laws in failing to provide adequate guidelines in this scenario.

Summary

Almost a year to the day since the High Court rejected the Amigo loans group's previous proposal for a scheme of arrangement, on 23 May 2022, Mr Justice Trower sanctioned the group's latest scheme proposal which would create the conditions for the group to resume lending and resolve the claims of thousands of the group's customers arising from its lending practices.

On 26 March 2021, Mr Justice Zacaroli of the English High Court sanctioned a restructuring plan (the Plan) proposed by gategroup Guarantee Limited (Gategroup), following approval at two creditors' meetings convened pursuant to a judgment handed down by Mr Justice Zacaroli on 17 February 2021.

On 20 May 2020, the UK government announced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”), introducing a mixture of permanent and temporary measures, the latter being in response to the financial challenges companies are facing as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown. In the absence of extensive consultation with insolvency practitioners and industry experts, it remains to be seen how effective the measures will be in practice.

The government has published its response to the consultation on insolvency and corporate governance. The document sets out its proposed next steps; in some areas the government will legislate but in other areas further consultation will be needed.

The proposed insolvency reforms include

• the introduction of a new moratorium to give ultimately viable financially distressed companies a period of time when creditors (including secured creditors) cannot take action against the company, allowing it to make preparations to restructure or seek new investment;

In the recent case of Lau Siu Hung v. Krzystof Marszalek (HCCW 484/2009, 17 June 2013) the Court of First Instance held that an annulment of bankruptcy does not debar a creditor, who has not proved his provable debt, from asserting his claim after the annulment.

Procedural Background

Release provisions

The scope of the powers afforded to the security agent by the so called “release provisions” found in many intercreditor agreements employed in LBO deals has come under scrutiny recently. A number of restructurings have relied upon using the security agent’s powers to implement a restructuring and many others will have at least considered using them.

In its recent consultation (“Managing the failure of systematic Digital Settlement Asset (including stablecoin) firms”), the Government has proposed that one of two special administration regimes (SARs) which currently apply to certain financial institutions (the Financial Market Infrastructure Special Administration Regime (FMI SAR) or the Payment and E-Money Special Administ