Actions brought against the BHS directors by the group’s liquidators have resulted in the largest reported award for wrongful trading since the provision’s introduction, but the judgment highlights some unsettled areas of the law relating to directors’ duties.

The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.

The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Sequana¹leaves many unanswered questions, and finding a common thread between the four quite separate judgments has proved challenging for practitioners and directors alike. The recent decision in Hunt v.

The U.K. Financial Services and Markets Act 2023

The U.K. government has published its much-anticipated proposals for regulating the cryptoasset industry. These proposals, currently in the form of a consultation, will see many (but not all) cryptoasset-related activities being brought within the regulatory perimeter for financial services in the U.K.

In a new ruling, the UK Supreme Court concluded that the rule applies only when a company is "insolvent or bordering on insolvency".

On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and others (Sequana)1. The case required the court to reconcile differing judicial pronouncements of the "creditors' interest rule" (the Rule) and consider the following questions:

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

The ruling confirmed that Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extensive international reach, and does not require a transaction at an undervalue to leave the debtor with insufficient assets.

Background

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina