Even before chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 2005 to govern cross-border bankruptcy proceedings, the enforceability of a foreign court order approving a restructuring plan that modified or discharged U.S. law-governed debt was well recognized under principles of international comity. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently reaffirmed this concept in In re Modern Land (China) Co., Ltd., 641 B.R. 768 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022).

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

In what is believed to be the first reported decision on this issue, the High Court has allowed an appeal under section 205(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) against a decision of the Secretary of State to defer the dissolution of a company in liquidation.

A link to the judgement can be found here.

The facts

Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.

The foundation of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code and similar legislation enacted by other countries to govern cross-border bankruptcy cases is "comity" and cooperation among U.S. and foreign courts. The importance of these concepts was recently illustrated by a ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. In In re Varig Logistica S.A., 2021 WL 5045684 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Oct.

In FCA v Carillion [2021] EWCH 2871 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) enforcement action against Carillion Plc (in Liquidation) (Carillion) pursuant to certain provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) does not constitute an “action or proceeding” and therefore falls outside of the scope of the statutory stay imposed by section 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).

Section 130(2) of the Act

Despite the absence of any explicit directive in the Bankruptcy Code, it is well understood that a debtor must file a chapter 11 petition in good faith. The bankruptcy court can dismiss a bad faith filing "for cause," which has commonly been found to exist in cases where the debtor seeks chapter 11 protection as a tactic to gain an advantage in pending litigation. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S.