Why calculating potential claims under s214 Insolvency Act 1986 can be far from simple

Introduction

Duties and Implications of financial Information in s.214 claims

Introduction

This article follows Part 1 in which I set out the key issues we have recently seen and the case law arising in Misfeasance and Wrongful Trading claims. This Part 2 considers the duties and implications surrounding the financial information that is available to directors when faced with a s.214 wrongful trading claim.

This article is a part one of two series that explores the key issues we have recently seen and the case law arising in Misfeasance and Wrongful Trading claims.

Introduction

What is Wrongful Trading?

In the recent case of Re Avanti Communications Ltd (In Administration)¹, the High Court considered whether charges granted by a satellite business over certain equipment and intangible assets (the Relevant Assets) were fixed or floating.

On October 17, 2022, Justice Andrea Masley of the NY Supreme Court issued a decision and order denying all but one of the motion to dismiss claims filed by Boardriders, Oaktree Capital (an equity holder, term lender, and “Sponsor” under the credit agreement), and an ad hoc group of lenders (the “Participating Lenders”) that participated in an “uptiering” transaction that included new money investments and roll-ups of existing term loan debt into new priming debt that would sit at the top of the company’s capital structure.

On October 14, 2022, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Ultra Petroleum, granting favorable outcomes to “unimpaired” creditors that challenged the company’s plan of reorganization and argued for payment (i) of a ~$200 million make-whole and (ii) post-petition interest at the contractual rate, not the Federal Judgment Rate. At issue on appeal was the Chapter 11 plan proposed by the “massively solvent” debtors—Ultra Petroleum Corp. (HoldCo) and its affiliates, including subsidiary Ultra Resources, Inc.

On July 6, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Judge Craig T. Goldblatt issued a memorandum opinion in the bankruptcy cases of TPC Group, Inc., growing the corpus of recent court decisions tackling “uptiering” and other similar transactions that have been dubbed by some practitioners and investors as “creditor-on-creditor violence.” This topic has been a hot button issue for a few years, playing out in a number of high profile scenarios, from J.Crew and Travelport to Serta Simmons and TriMark, among others.

The Monthly Insolvency Statistics for November 2020 were released by the government on 15 December 2020 which saw an increase in corporate insolvencies up by 4% to 889, compared to October’s figure of 862 and a fall in personal insolvencies down by 22% with 9,319 compared to October’s figure of 11,945.

On August 26, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not require subordination agreements to be strictly enforced in order for a court to confirm a cramdown plan, so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly.

The UK government introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (CIGB) to Parliament on 20 May 2020. As well as including temporary measures to help support businesses affected by COVID-19, it proposes significant permanent changes to UK insolvency law. These proposed permanent changes include a new company moratorium: a mechanism to give a company in financial difficulty a temporary breathing space against creditor action, during which the directors remain in control, but overseen by a monitor.