In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

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

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".

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.

Introduction

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.

What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?

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.