A bedrock principle underlying chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is that creditors, shareholders, and other stakeholders should be provided with adequate information to make an informed decision to either accept or reject a chapter 11 plan. For this reason, the Bankruptcy Code provides that any "solicitation" of votes for or against a plan must be preceded or accompanied by stakeholders' receipt of a "disclosure statement" approved by the bankruptcy court explaining the background of the case as well as the key provisions of the chapter 11 plan.

In the recent case of Re JD Group Ltd in liquidation; Bhatia v Purkiss (as liquidator of JD Group Ltd) a company director appealed a decision that he was liable for VAT fraud.

Background

Mr Bhatia was the sole director of a company trading in mobile phones. He was sent a HMRC notice explaining the risks of mobile phone trading and liability for involvement in VAT fraud.

In Short

The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which limits a party's ability to undo an asset transfer made to a good-faith purchaser in a bankruptcy case, is jurisdictional.

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to assume, assume and assign, or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases is an important tool designed to promote a "fresh start" for debtors and to maximize the value of the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. However, the Bankruptcy Code establishes strict requirements for the assumption or assignment of contracts and leases.

In times of economic uncertainty, fraud typically increases. And these are certainly economically uncertain times. Fraud has been on the rise over recent years and that trend is set to continue. The motivation and opportunity to commit fraud increases as financial pressures loom over individuals and businesses. We are also set to see a continued increase in insolvencies as the impact of the pandemic and other global events set in. The appointment of insolvency practitioners means frauds which might have otherwise continued or remained concealed are more likely to be uncovered.

While an insolvency process is not always welcomed with open arms, in fraud cases it can play a key role in uncovering frauds that might otherwise have remained concealed and may result in recoveries for victims. This is because an insolvency process paves the way for an independent investigation into the company's affairs and the directors' conduct to be carried out by an insolvency practitioner (IP).

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana.

At a time when many companies are facing financial difficulties and directors are considering their legal duties, this long-awaited judgment has confirmed that directors have a 'creditor interest duty' when a company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency or an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable.  

Background

In Stratford Hamilton (joint liquidator of Mobigo Ltd (in liquidation)) v James Mcateer, Teresa Delgaudio [2022] the court dismissed the directors' application to strike out misfeasance claims against them. 

Background 

The Insolvency Service's report on the impact of CVAs on commercial landlords, particularly in the retail and casual dining sector, follows concerns from landlords that compromises are unfairly affecting them. The research was based on 59 CVA proposals.

Key findings

In Rushbrooke UK Ltd (the Company) v Designs Concept Ltd (Designs) [2022] EWHC 1110 (Ch), the Court struck out injunction proceedings to restrain the presentation of a winding up petition as the instructing director did not have Company authority.

Background