Members' voluntary liquidation

What is a MVL?

Voluntary liquidation or winding-up is a process in which the company, through the resolution of its members, decides to end the activities of the company and move towards the eventual dissolution of the company.

A members' voluntary liquidation, commonly referred to as an MVL, is appropriate only where the company is solvent. If the company is insolvent, a creditors’ voluntary liquidation (CVL) or compulsory liquidation must take place. For further information on CVL and compulsory liquidation, see:

  1. Creditors' voluntary liquidation (CVL)—overview

  2. Compulsory liquidation—overview

A MVL is typically used where a solvent company has served its purpose and its members no longer wish to retain it as a corporate entity. It is also used where members wish to get back their investment in a solvent company. For further information on when a MVL is appropriate, see Practice Notes:

  1. Liquidation—an introductory guide

  2. What is a members’ voluntary liquidation and when is it typically used?

For a discussion of MVL versus striking off, see Practice Note: MVL versus striking off.

Statutory declaration of solvency

A company enters

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