Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
Supreme Court rules that a director who unlawfully moves company assets following liquidation commits a breach of fiduciary duty and must reimburse the company for the consequent loss ( Mitchell and another ( Joint Liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc ( In Liquidation)) v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber) Mitchell and another ( Joint Liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc ( In Liquidation)) ( Respondents) v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber ( Appellant); Mitchell and another ( Joint Liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc ( In Liquidation)) ( Appellants) v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber ( Respondent) No 2 [2025] UKSC 43 Background Sheikh Mohamed Al Jaber ('the Sheikh') is a prominent global entrepreneur and serves as founder and chair of numerous business enterprises. He acted as a director of MBI International & Partners Inc (the '...
Petrofac Ltd [2025] EWHC 2887 ( Ch) What was the background? Petrofac Ltd (the Company) is a Jersey-incorporated entity, headquartered in London, that functions as the holding company of the Petrofac Group. Its operations comprise owning shares in subsidiaries, delivering management services, and making loans to other Petrofac Group members. Confronted with financial difficulties, in late 2024 the Company promoted a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (the Part 26A plan). Although sanctioned at first instance, dissenting creditors appealed and the Court of Appeal set aside the sanction order. In the wake of that ruling, the Company assessed the feasibility of a business disposal or raising further capital, which evolved into a proposal for senior creditors to acquire the business via a pre-pack administration. Those workstreams progressed in tandem with an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court;...
In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation Financial institutions Employees and insolvency International restructuring and insolvency Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals Daily and weekly news alerts New content Key R& I law developments Insolvency Practitioners ( Amendment and Transitional Provisions) Regulations ( Northern Ireland) 2025, SR 2025/177: This instrument revises the Insolvency Practitioners Regulations ( Northern Ireland) 2006 ( SR 2006/33), creating an obligation to pay interest on losses resulting from, or enabled by, an insolvency practitioner’s fraud or dishonesty. The interest must be set above the Sterling Overnight Index Average ( SONIA), among other changes. The provisions take effect on 9 December 2025. See: LNB News 17/11/2025 2. Insolvency Service publishes monthly insolvency statistics for October 2025 The Insolvency Service has issued October 2025 monthly...
INSOL Europe/ Lexis Nexis research on implementation of the EU Directive Lexis PSL is collaborating with INSOL Europe on a joint initiative to gather articles from INSOL Europe members and Country Coordinators explaining how EU Member States have implemented Directive ( EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on steps to enhance the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, which also amends Directive ( EU) 2017/1132 (the EU Directive). A consolidated table is available at Practice Note: INSOL Europe/ Lexis+® UK Joint Project on EU Harmonisation Directive 2019/1023: consolidated table. As always, local lawyers in the relevant jurisdiction should be consulted to verify the measures currently in force and the effect of any particular circumstances or nuances of your...
See Precedents: Short details of claim—transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 Particulars of claim—transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 For a summary of claims by an insolvent estate or its insolvency office-holder, see: Claims by an insolvent estate or its insolvency office-holder—overview......
See Precedents: Application notice seeking the setting aside of a floating charge under section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 Witness statement in support of an application to set aside a floating charge under section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 Draft order concerning an application to set aside a floating charge under section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 For an overview on claims by an insolvent estate or its insolvency office-holder, see: Claims by an insolvent estate or its insolvency office-holder—overview......
Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Sahonta [2025] EAT 166 What are the practical implications of this case? This EAT ruling clarifies that, where appropriate, appointing a provisional liquidator can amount to bankruptcy or comparable insolvency proceedings commenced with the objective of liquidating the transferor's assets, for the purposes of the Transfer of Undertakings ( Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 ( TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, reg 8(7). That position triggers the disapplication of ( TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, regs 4 and 7, which otherwise govern the transfer of employment and employees and the rule of automatic unfair dismissal. What was the background? ......
In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring R& I in Scotland International restructuring and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Corporate insolvency processes Winding-up petition dismissed due to genuine and substantial dispute ( Abcor Finance Securities Ltd v Binomia Ltd) The High Court rejected a winding-up petition because the claimed debt was genuinely and substantially disputed. This serves as a reminder to creditors that insolvency proceedings are not the proper setting for resolving contractual disagreements. The background to the ruling also underscores the need for exact drafting in loan agreements, particularly regarding repayment provisions. For further detail, see News Analysis: Winding-up petition dismissed due to genuine and substantial dispute ( Abcor Finance Securities Ltd v Binomia Ltd), authored by Helen Martin, managing associate at Stevens & Bolton...
Abcor Finance Securities Ltd v Binomia Ltd [2025] EWHC 2374 ( Ch) What was the background? Abcor Finance Securities Ltd (the Petitioner) issued a winding-up petition against Binomia Ltd (the Company), asserting a liability of £305,811.91 pursuant to a parent company guarantee granted by the Company (the Guarantee). That Guarantee supported a loan agreement under which Abcor Finance No 2 Ltd advanced funds to the Company’s subsidiary, Circular Tech Solutions Ltd ( CTS), for the acquisition of mobile phone stock (the Loan Agreement). The Guarantee was expressed as a primary obligation, removing any need to demand payment from CTS before enforcement. Thus, upon non-payment by CTS when sums fell due under the Loan Agreement, the Petitioner could proceed immediately against the Company. CTS drew down on the facility several separate times under the Loan Agreement. The Loan Agreement stated that the facility term was ‘up to 90...
Clash of jurisdictions— The English court confirms its jurisdiction against long-arm receiverships, but provides narrow carve-out for third parties ( CIHL v Protopapas & Others) Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd and another v Protopapas and others [2025] EWHC 2706 ( Ch) What was the background? This matter originates in a third party’s bid to construe and vary an English court order obtained by Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd (‘ CIHL’) against its South Carolina receiver, alongside CIHL’s cross‑application to injunct that third party from striking any settlement with the overseas receiver, who, under the order and English law, lacked authority to act for or bind CIHL. The order followed an earlier judgment in November 2024 ( Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd and Cape Plc v Peter D Protopapas [2024] EWHC 2999 ( Ch)), in which Mann J declared that CIHL’s directors—not the foreign...
Re Poundland Ltd [2025] EWHC 2755 ( Ch) What was the background? Poundland Ltd ran around 800 discount stores across the UK, employing 13,100 people, but fell into financial distress after unsuccessful moves into chilled and frozen categories and e‑commerce, while higher National Insurance and the living wage pushed up operating costs. EBITDA dropped steeply from £87m in FY22 to £25m in FY24, with FY25 projected at a negative £117m. The business was owned by Pepco NV via PEU ( Tre) Ltd, and between 2021–2022 Pepco advanced £237m in unsecured loans to meet post‑coronavirus ( COVID‑19) needs and fund the diversification programme. A limited M& A process in spring 2024 produced only two interested parties, neither proceeding due to sharply worsening profitability. Pepco then began a strategic review, including a CBRE leasehold estate review that found extensive over‑renting across the portfolio. Efforts to reach...
In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation International restructuring & insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New Q& As Key R& I law developments Insolvency Practitioners ( Recognised Professional Bodies) ( Revocation of Recognition) ( No 2) Order ( Northern Ireland) 2025 SR 2025/170 This Order modifies the Insolvency Practitioners ( Recognised Professional Bodies) Order ( Northern Ireland) 1991, SR 1991/301, removing the Law Society of Northern Ireland from the Schedule with effect from 5 November 2025. It takes effect on 5 November 2025. See: LNB News 04/11/2025. 2. Corporate insolvency processes Insolvency Service announces winding-up of solar panel companies following consumer complaints The Insolvency Service confirmed that Trident West Industries Ltd was wound up by the High Court in London on 28 October 2025, six...
Credit Suisse Virtuoso Sicav- Sif (in respect of its Sub- Fund, the Credit Suisse ( Lux) Supply Chain Finance Fund) and another company v Softbank Group Corp and other companies [2025] EWHC 2631 ( Ch) What was the background? This dispute arose from an intricate financing arrangement connecting the Greensill, Katerra and Soft Bank groups. Credit Suisse Virtuoso Sicav‑ SIF ( Credit Suisse) invested, through its Credit Suisse ( Lux) Supply Chain Finance Fund (the SCF Subfund), in notes arranged and administered in England by Greensill Capital ( UK) Ltd ( GCUK) and issued by Hoffman S.à r.l. ( Hoffman) under a scheme known as the Fairymead Multi‑ Obligor Programme (the Fairymead Note Programme). The intended collateral for that programme comprised certain rights (the Participations) granted under a Participation Agreement dated 19 December 2019 by a special purpose vehicle, Greensill Ltd ( GL), to its...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—30 October 2025 In this edition: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Document review Restructuring The office-holder Financial institutions International restructuring and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for insolvency and restructuring professionals New content New Q& As Key R& I law developments Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 ( Commencement No 6 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2025 SI 2025/1118: Selected parts of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 ( ECCTA 2023) take effect on 18 November 2025, namely: ECCTA 2023, s 4 (identity checks for proposed officers) to the extent not commenced ECCTA 2023, s 7 ( ID verification for persons with initial significant control), save where it introduces the provisions listed in paragraph (3) ECCTA 2023, s 31...
Pagden (as Security Trustee under a Security and Intercreditor Deed dated 24 December 2015) and others v Ridgley [2025] EWHC 2674 ( Ch) What was the background? Orthios Eco Parks ( Anglesey) Ltd and Orthios Power ( Anglesey) Ltd (together, the Companies) sat within the Orthios Group. The group obtained capital from Cresta Energy Ltd ( Cresta), which put £66m into bonds issued via MPB Eco Parks Ltd ( MPB), and from between 300 and 400 retail investors who subscribed £36.4m of bonds. Those bonds were backed by fixed and floating charges over land granted by the Companies, with all such security vested in Mr Colin, as security trustee, under a Security Trust Deed. On 25 March 2022, after an event of default, Mr Colin used his qualifying floating charge to appoint Mr Ridgley as administrator of the Companies. He did so without...
Conway and others (in their capacity as Joint Special Administrators of Argentex LLP ( In Special Administration)) v Plass and others [2025] EWHC 2625 ( Ch) What was the background? The matter related to directions requested by the Joint Special Administrators ( JAs) of Argentex LLP ( Argentex), after the firm entered special administration on 21 July 2025. By an application notice dated 12 August 2025, the JAs invited the court to give directions pursuant to paragraph 63 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, as applied by the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021 (the 2021 Regulations), SI 2021/716, regulation 37. Argentex’s core business comprised payment services alongside currency conversion, and it was authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority ( FCA) both as an Electronic Money Institution under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 and as a Mi FID...
Altrad Investment Authority SAS and others v Protopapas and others [2025] EWHC 2470 ( Ch) What was the background? This dispute centred on Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd ( CIHL), an English company that previously engaged in asbestos extraction and is now within the Altrad group. In 2021, a claim was brought in South Carolina by Ms Isabella Park against numerous defendants including Cape Plc, and CIHL was later joined as a defendant in November 2021. On 6 March 2023, an application for receivership was submitted to appoint a receiver over CIHL, predicated on the alleged US presence and activities of North American Asbestos Corporation ( NAAC), a dissolved CIHL subsidiary. The receivership order was granted on 16 March 2023 without a hearing, naming Mr Peter Protopapas as receiver. In reliance on that order, Mr Protopapas brought third‑party proceedings in June 2023 within distinct South...
In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency The office-holder International restructuring and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals Key R& I law developments Insolvency Service publishes monthly insolvency statistics for September 2025 The Insolvency Service has released its monthly figures for September 2025 covering corporate and personal insolvencies across England and Wales. It covers company and individual procedures across England and Wales during the period, as set out therein. The figures show 2,000 corporate insolvencies, broadly matching August 2025 (2,046) and the level recorded a year earlier (1,967 in September 2024). For individuals, total insolvencies in September 2025 stood at 11,101, down 3% on August 2025 but 7% above September 2024. See: LNB News 17/10/2025 29. Corporate insolvency...
Pagden (as liquidator of Core VCT IV Plc and Core VCT V plc) and others v Fry and other cases [2025] EWHC 2316 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision clarifies that, although liquidators’ firms and their personnel may, in certain circumstances, invoke limitation clauses in relation to distinct contractual or tortious duties (always subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and fact-specific questions of vicarious liability), individual liquidators cannot restrict the statutory obligations that arise under a statutory trust. Sensible practice is for liquidators and their firms to revisit engagement letters to (a) set out, with precision, the separation between liquidators’ statutory functions and any contractual or advisory services; and (b) add explicit carve-outs confirming that limitation provisions have no application to the liquidators’ statutory duties. What was the background? The claimants are three companies that issued...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
