Compulsory liquidation

Compulsory liquidation is the process of winding-up a company by the court. It is most frequently used by a company’s creditors, but it is possible for others—such as the company itself, or members—to also use this process. It is an alternative to voluntary liquidation (both creditors’ voluntary liquidation (CVL) and members’ voluntary liquidation).

The circumstances in which a company can be wound up by the court

By a company’s creditors

A winding-up petition is most commonly issued by a creditor who is owed money and is unable to recover it through the usual debt recovery methods. A creditor may issue a petition on the following grounds:

  1. they have served a statutory demand and the 21-day period for payment/response has expired

  2. they have an enforcement or execution process following a judgment, which is unsatisfied, either in full or in part, or

  3. they are able to prove to the court that the company is unable to pay its debts as and when they fall due, or that the company is balance sheet insolvent—as per the definition of insolvency under the section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ( To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

Fossil secures court approval for innovative UK restructuring plan (Re Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court sanctioned the restructuring plan of Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) (the ‘Plan’), following near‑unanimous approval (99.99% by value) from a single class of noteholders, comprising both retail and wholesale creditors. Mr Justice Richards applied the four‑stage test set out by Lord Justice Snowden in Re AGPS Bondco Plc (‘Adler’): (i) whether the statutory requirements were satisfied, (ii) whether the class was fairly represented and voted bona fide in the interests of the class, (iii) whether the plan was fair and could reasonably have been approved (the so‑called ‘limited rationality test’), and (iv) whether any legal ‘blot’ or defect existed. The court placed particular emphasis on the quality and accessibility of information provided to retail creditors, noting that the involvement of an independent Retail Advocate helped ensure that they were properly informed and adequately represented throughout the process. Concerns regarding the participation rights of ‘New‑Money’ providers and the appropriateness of a single class were considered and rejected, with the judge satisfied that all creditors were better off under the Plan than under the relevant alternative. No defects were identified, and expert evidence supported the conclusion that the Plan would likely be recognised in the US, thereby ensuring its cross‑border effectiveness. Written by Brian Rostron, associate at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

Popular documents