At the initial hearing, the High Court found the dividend was caught by section 423 and was therefore invalid. Importantly, it said that a dividend could constitute a transaction at an undervalue. This was an important confirmation, and the High Court has since followed this approach (for example, in Dickinson v NAL Realisations (Staffordshire) Ltd).

The court has decided to allow a shareholder to pursue a derivative claim on behalf of a company that was placed into a pre-pack administration.

What happened?

Montgold Capital LLP v Ilska and others involved a restaurant company which was placed into a “pre-pack” administration, under which its entire business was sold, in late 2016.

In March 2018, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) published a consultation on proposed reforms to the UK’s insolvency and corporate governance landscape. That consultation included certain significant proposals, including extending liability to the directors of holding companies that sell insolvent subsidiaries.

The High Court has found that two directors and one former director of a company were in breach of their duties by causing the company to implement a reorganisation and a capital reduction when they were aware there was a risk it would lose its source of income.

In addition, the statutory statement of solvency supporting the capital reduction was invalid because the director had not formed the opinion set out in it. As a result, the capital reduction and a subsequent dividend were unlawful, and the directors were liable to repay the dividend.

What happened?

The High Court has held that two director-shareholders of a company who were unsuccessfully prosecuted for fraud could not claim back the drop in the value of their shares when the company’s business failed.

What happened?

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has published a consultation on insolvency and corporate governance.

The consultation is aimed primarily at improving corporate governance in firms that are in or approaching insolvency. However, it also puts forward proposals for improving the wider framework of corporate governance.

The key proposals from the consultation are set out below.

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.

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.

GENERAL CORPORATE

In this issue, we focus on cases concerning directors’ considerations when making a solvency statement for a capital reduction, and whether “bad leaver” provisions containing compulsory share transfers are capable of being contractual penalties.

Statements of solvency on a reduction of capital: what must the directors consider?

The High Court has held in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others [2016] that payments of dividends were not made in breach of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”).

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).