Natural resources, agriculture and life sciences

Industry/sector guides

This subtopic considers restructuring and insolvency in the natural resources (oil and gas, mining and water), agriculture and life sciences industries. Our industry/sector guides for restructuring and insolvency professionals are designed to provide an insight into the aspects of a given industry/sector that are most likely to be relevant in an enforcement, restructuring or insolvency context. Companies in the selected industries often have specific corporate and financial structures and the industry may be governed by regulatory requirements.

What this subtopic covers

This subtopic includes:

Energy supply

  1. Special administration regime for energy supply companies—this Practice Note looks at the special administration regime (SAR) for energy supply companies introduced by the Energy Act 2011. It considers what the SAR is, how and when it can be initiated, what it seeks to achieve, and how it can be exited, as well as practical considerations for directors of distressed energy supply companies. Produced in partnership with Siân Perez, senior associate, Sophie Waples, senior associate, and Jennifer Marshall, partner at Allen & Overy LLP

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

Commercial Court gives guidance on pleading and proving claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Commercial Court dismissed a claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) that the first defendant (Mr El-Husseini) had transferred valuable assets to eight transferee defendants, being his family members, companies under their control and a discretionary trust, with the purpose of putting the assets beyond reach of the claimant (Invest Bank) as a potential creditor. The court held that the allegations advanced at trial were of serious wrongdoing amounting to dishonest behaviour or disreputable conduct which accordingly required a clear pleading of a sufficiently cogent case. Invest Bank had not properly pleaded in its particulars of claim the primary facts on which it sought to rely at trial in raising its case based on inference against the defendants. A positive case as to the financial difficulties of one of the key companies was only raised in a reply to the defence of one of the eight defendants. In any event, without expert accountancy evidence as to the state of finances of the key companies the court could not draw any inferences as to Mr El-Husseini’s purpose. The court also declined to draw adverse inferences from Mr El-Husseini’s failure to participate in the proceedings after a failed jurisdiction challenge, and he gave guidance on the law and practice in that regard. Written by Tiffany Scott KC, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

Popular documents