Judgment was handed down last week on the substantial directors' duties and wrongful trading claims brought against former directors of various BHS companies^[1].

On 31 October 2023, Federal Law No. 51 of 2023 Promulgating the Financial and Bankruptcy Law (the Bankruptcy Law) was published in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Official Gazette, repealing the prior federal law on bankruptcy (Federal Law No. 9 of 2016, the Prior Law) and significantly developing the bankruptcy regime in the UAE.

Fraudulent trading is both a civil and criminal offence. The recent judgment of the High Court in Bouchier v Booth provided a helpful reminder of the principles that a Court will apply when considering whether directors have acted in a manner that constitutes fraudulent trading and the high threshold for proving fraudulent conduct.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the previous decision of the High Court to sanction a restructuring plan ("Plan") that had been proposed by the Adler Group ("Adler") should be set aside. The decision marks the first appeal in relation to a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 ("Companies Act") and the decision offers clarity on the approach to restructuring plans, particularly when considering issues of "fairness".

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

The Supreme Court has provided welcome clarity for insolvency practitioners in confirming that administrators of a company appointed pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") will not be criminally liable for a failure by the company to comply with redundancy notification requirements.

Since the introduction of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) and the creation of the new Part 26A restructuring plan procedure, questions have been raised about whether the cost of using such a procedure would restrict its use to larger, better capitalised companies.

The long awaited Sequana Supreme Court judgment[1] has provided some welcome clarity around the duties of the directors of a company in the "twilight zone" – i.e. where the company is facing financial difficulties.

The Insolvency Service has recently published its interim report (the "Report") which considers the three permanent measures that were introduced pursuant to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 ("CIGA"). For further details on the temporary and permanent measures introduced pursuant to CIGA, see our previous update.