The recent High Court decisions in Boughey & Anor v Toogood International Transport and Agricultural Services Ltd and Re Pindar Scarborough Ltd (in administration) have helpfully provided clarity on the extent to which secured creditors that have been paid in full are required to consent to proposed administration extensions. Unhelpfully, however, the court’s approach is fundamentally at odds with the position of the Insolvency Service.

The High Court has handed down an important decision confirming that an unrecognised foreign judgment can be used to form the basis of a bankruptcy petition.

In rejecting the bankrupt’s appeal, the court confirmed that a debt arising pursuant to such a judgment is capable of constituting a “debt” for the purposes of section 267 Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act), despite the fact that the underlying judgment had not been the subject of recognition proceedings in England.

Facts

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in the case of Humphrey v Bennett, providing some useful guidance on the nature and scope of a director’s duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The case was an appeal against summary judgment of the High Court following a derivative claim brought on behalf of a company by minority shareholders. The case will be of particular interest to directors of smaller companies whose management structures very often operate on a more informal footing.

The well-publicised restructuring of the Galapagos group (the group) in 2019 spawned multiple challenges by stakeholders in the courts of a number of different jurisdictions. The latest decision of the English High Court considers the interpretation of the Distressed Disposal provision within an LMA-form intercreditor agreement (ICA) following a challenge by subordinated noteholders (the noteholders) to the validity of the release of their claims as part of the wider restructuring.

In Mitchell and others v Al Jaber; Al Jaber and others v JJW Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 423 the Court of Appeal has confirmed that a director remained subject to a continuing fiduciary duty post liquidation when purporting to transfer assets owned by that company, on the basis he was an “intermeddler”. While the case concerned a BVI company, the court’s decision was based on English-law authorities and therefore has wider significance.

Facts

The High Court has approved the sale of a portfolio of securities owned by Sova Capital Limited (Sova) to an unsecured creditor in consideration of the release of that creditor’s claim. The court’s approval of the transaction in this case marks the first reported decision on an unsecured credit bid for the assets of a company in administration (Re Sova Capital Limited (in special administration) [2023] EWHC 452 (Ch)).

Facts

The Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA on 5 October 2022. This important case addresses the duties of directors to consider the interests of creditors as a company approaches insolvency.

While the judgment will be welcomed by many as providing some useful guidance on a number of issues, there still remain some key areas of uncertainty which, as we consider in further detail below, will present clear challenges for directors seeking to navigate their way through a company’s financial difficulties.

Four directors have been disqualified for abusing the dissolution process pursuant to powers introduced by the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 (the Act). In each case, the director secured a bounce back loan on behalf of their company before taking steps to dissolve the company in an attempt to avoid repaying liabilities under the scheme.

The government’s monthly insolvency statistics for June 2022 paint a picture of an economy that is still struggling to return to pre-pandemic profitability. Company insolvencies were 40% higher than for the same period last year and 15% higher than in June 2019 (i.e. pre-pandemic levels), with the increased level of insolvencies being largely driven by the higher number of creditors’ voluntary liquidations.

The Court of Appeal has held that the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders (who nonetheless enjoy priority status in respect of their creditor claims), providing some much-needed clarity on this issue for e-money institutions and their clients.

A link to the judgment can be found here.

Background