The High Court has found the former directors of collapsed retail chain BHS liable for wrongful trading, misfeasant trading and individual acts of misfeasance.

Although overall quantum is yet to be decided, this has been widely reported as the largest wrongful trading award the courts have made since the introduction of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Insolvency officeholders seeking to realise claims or other rights of action will take comfort from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Edengate [2022] EWCA Civ 626.

The Court held that failure by a liquidator to give a defendant the opportunity to buy or settle a claim against it before selling the claim to a third party is not necessarily perverse. However, it may often be sensible or good practice to do so.

The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

The FCA has published finalised guidance for insolvency practitioners (IPs) appointed (or looking to be appointed) over regulated firms.

This sets out the FCA’s expectations as to how IPs can ensure firms continue to meet their regulatory obligations both before an appointment and during the course of an insolvency process. It confirms the FCA’s view of what would constitute good practice, as well as linking in to some of the existing statutory obligations on regulated firms and/or IPs.

The National Security and Investment Act 2021 creates a new screening regime for transactions which might raise national security concerns in the UK. It passed into law on 29 April 2021 and is expected to come into effect by autumn 2021.

However, as the Act has retrospective effect from November 2020, insolvency practitioners need to understand the implications for insolvency sales taking place now. We have summarised the headline issues for insolvency practitioners below.

You need to consider the impact of this Act on transactions that are taking place now.

Voluntary measures to scrutinise pre-pack sales to connected parties have not been enough to alleviate creditor concerns, says the Government. A new regulatory framework governing connected party sales in administration will be put in place before the end of June 2021. Draft regulations were published on 8 October 2020.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background