Following a long wait of 18 months, the Supreme Court has today confirmed that the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana is unanimously dismissed.

The key question that many of us have been waiting for the answer to is: Does the creditor duty set out in s172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 exist and if so, when is it engaged?

The perceived costs of proposing a restructuring plan are seen to be the biggest inhibitors to using the process for SMEs. It is still a relatively new tool and insolvency practitioners, lawyers and the courts are still grappling with it, but as we have seen recently in Amigo Loans it can provide creative and innovative restructuring solutions[1].

It is often the case, that insolvency claims are pursued against former directors of the insolvent company or persons connected to them. It is also often the case, that such claims are assigned to a litigation funding company given lack of funds in the insolvent estate to pursue them. This is what happened in Lock v Stanley where various claims against the former directors, their parents and connected company were assigned to Manolete.

What options does a creditor have when they are frustrated with how a debtor is conducting its chapter 11 bankruptcy case? In In re PWM Property Management LLC, the Delaware bankruptcy court denied a motion by creditors and interest holders to file a proposed plan of reorganization as an exhibit to their opposition to the debtors’ motion to extend the exclusivity period. The PWM Property Management decision serves as an important reminder of the strict limits on who can file and solicit a plan of reorganization and when filing of a plan is appropriate.

Can messy be good? Sometimes the answer is yes. The chapter 11 case filed by Limetree Bay Services, LLC and five of its affiliates (“Limetree Bay”) is one example of auction disorder actually bringing increased creditor recoveries. Bankruptcy professionals, financially distressed companies and acquirers of distressed assets can learn valuable lessons from this odd bankruptcy auction process, which shows the importance of (1) debtors preserving their flexibility during an auction, and (2) investors having appropriate expectations and resources before bidding on a debtor’s assets.

Throughout the pandemic we have seen a succession of temporary practice directions, enabling practitioners to deal with the swearing of notices of intention (NOI) and notices of appointment (NOA) of administrators remotely, as well as answering a question which the judiciary had grappled with several times – when does a notice of intention or notice of appointment come into effect if filed outside of court hours?

Here we go again – proposed bankruptcy venue legislation is back after previous “reform” efforts came up empty. For those seeking legislative action, what are the chances for venue reform now?

Opening the door for the SME market, Sir Alistair Norris has sanctioned the first ever restructuring plan for a “mid-market” company. The plan sanctioned in Amicus Finance PLC (in administration) is also the first restructuring plan proposed by insolvency practitioners and the first to cram down a secured creditor.

The sanction judgment is short, but the adjourned convening hearing that was dealt with by Mr Justice Snowden (the first hearing was before Mr Justice Trowers) gives some insight into the plan.

Two controversial mechanisms are available in many circuits to assist parties in a chapter 11 case to reach a global resolution and obtain plan confirmation: non-consensual third-party releases and preliminary stays against third-party litigation.

Is there any downside to a debtor filing a motion to estimate a claim? Or, is an estimation motion simply procedural in nature? As the debtors recently discovered in In re SC SJ Holdings LLC, a motion to estimate a claim before a bankruptcy court may not always lead to a significantly reduced claim, and may impact plan confirmation.

The Facts