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 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.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

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.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.