This week:
The Courts, practitioners and leading textbooks have always assumed that the Limitation Act 1980 (the Limitation Act) does not apply to claims for relief from unfair prejudice under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 (the Companies Act).
In THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 158, the Court of Appeal examined the basis for that assumption and unanimously decided that:
This week:
This week:
Court imposes compensation order on disqualified director
The court has ordered a disqualified director of an insolvent company to pay personal compensation to creditors.
The court orders a disqualified director of an insolvent company to pay personal compensation to creditors.
This is only the second time the courts have considered a personal compensation order against a disqualified director since their introduction in 2015.
What happened?
Secretary of State v Barnsby [2023] EWHC 2284 (Ch) concerned an individual who was the sole director and majority shareholder of a company that sold package holidays.
The High Court has considered the point at which the directors’ duty to consider the interests of creditors arose in the context of a tax mitigation scheme that ultimately failed
The judge found that the duty to consider creditors’ interests had arisen once the directors had become aware that there was a real risk that the scheme would fail and that the company would therefore be unable to pay its debts.
In this week’s update: an updated checklist for managing an electronic signing on a corporate or commercial transaction, the FCA and AIM are to bring an end to temporary relaxations introduced due to Covid-19 and the court orders a listed company to be wound up on “just and equitable grounds.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.
Case Background
A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.
In this week’s update: Funds in a holding company’s bank account belonged to a subsidiary and could be used to pay the costs of a subsidiary’s acquisition, the FCA publishes a series of Q&A on the cessation of LIBOR and the Government publishes a roadmap towards greening finance and sustainable investing.