The UK’s corporate governance regime has been stress-tested in the past decade and in many respects it has done well. However, in response to certain high profile corporate collapses which have caused heavy losses for creditors, in particular individuals and suppliers with little opportunity to protect themselves against losses, and in the spirit of continual improvement, the government has recently launched its “Insolvency and Corporate Governance Consultation”.

The consultation indicates that the government is considering changes in the law to address:

The securities safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) does not protect allegedly fraudulent “transfers in which financial institutions served as mere conduits,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, 2018. Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 WL 1054879, *7 (2018). Affirming the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint alleging the insolvent debtor’s overpayment for a stock interest, the Court found the payment not covered by §546(e) and thus recoverable. The district court had dismissed the trustee’s claim.

Summary

The UK Court of Appeal recently confirmed that lawyers (Decherts) could no longer act for a company (Avonwick). Our views on the first instance decision can be found here.

Background

Background

Eight years ago, Nortel Networks Inc. and many affiliates filed multiple insolvency proceedings, across Europe, the US, and Canada. At the outset, the debtors expected creditor recoveries would be small.

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

Having launched the original version three years ago, we have refreshed our Safeguarding Your Business guide as an eBook. The guide assists clients in protecting themselves either proactively or reactively in respect of a counterparty’s insolvency with new sections on trusts and examples of how we have helped, using some of the principles raised.

The safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) §546(e) does not protect “transfers that are simply conducted through financial institutions,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on July 28, 2016. FTI Consulting Inc. v. Merit Management Group LP, 2016 WL 4036408, *1 (7th Cir. July 28, 2016).

The Facts

A owned two properties, one of which had been divided into two separately rateable properties for council tax purposes. R presented a bankruptcy petition against A based on a purported debt of £14,097.59 owed by A in respect of unpaid council tax for which it had obtained liability orders from the Magistrates Court.

Key points

Rights under s23, s24 and s31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (the “Act”) can only be pursued by the spouses themselves. Consequently, any ongoing action brought pursuant to those sections of the Act does not vest in the trustee in bankruptcy on appointment.

The facts

Key point

Whilst a winding up petition is not the appropriate forum to conduct a “mini trial”, the court is not bound to dismiss the petition if the dispute raised by the debtor company lacks substance.

The facts