In a recent ruling (NMC Health PLC (in Administration) v Ernst & Young LLP [2024] EWHC 2905 (Comm)), the High Court declined to order disclosure of witness statements and transcripts of interviews conducted by administrators during their initial investigations, citing litigation privilege.

Litigation privilege

Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

In Harrington v Purdue Pharma,¹ the United States Supreme Court held that so-called “non-consensual third-party releases” were not permitted in restructuring plans proposed under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. A “third-party release” arises where creditors are asked to vote on a restructuring plan or scheme which not only proposes to release the debtor company (i.e. the company that has petitioned for bankruptcy or is proposing the scheme) from all liability but to also release other third parties from any associated liability.

In March 2015 the major high street retailer British Home Stores (BHS) was acquired for £1 by Retail Acquisitions Limited (RAL), a company owned by Mr Dominic Chappell. Mr Chappell became a director of the BHS entities upon completion of the purchase, together with three other individuals.

What happens to a company at the end of an administration is a question that probably only keeps insolvency anoraks up at night.

There are a limited number of potential options, with the rescue of the company as a going concern being the number one objective to which all administrators aspire. However, more often than not, an administration will end with the company entering liquidation or, where the company has no property to permit a distribution to creditors, the dissolution of the company.

The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024 (the “Employment Act”) was signed into law on 9 May 2024 albeit the provisions have not yet commenced. The General Scheme of Companies (Corporate Governance, Enforcement and Regulatory Provisions) Bill 2024 (the “Companies Bill”) was published in March this year and is expected to be enacted later this year. Both make significant changes to the restructuring and insolvency regime. We will continue to keep you apprised of developments regarding the commencement of the Act.

While franchising has typically been a more robust business model than others, it remains susceptible to broader economic and sectoral pressures, as The Body Shop’s recent entry into administration demonstrates.

In the unfortunate event that a franchisor or franchisee becomes insolvent, disruption is inevitable. However, insolvency doesn’t necessarily spell a terminal outcome. In this article we consider some of the key considerations for both franchisors and franchisees.

Handling franchisee insolvency: the franchisor’s approach

The High Court has handed down an important decision confirming that an unrecognised foreign judgment can be used to form the basis of a bankruptcy petition.

In rejecting the bankrupt’s appeal, the court confirmed that a debt arising pursuant to such a judgment is capable of constituting a “debt” for the purposes of section 267 Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act), despite the fact that the underlying judgment had not been the subject of recognition proceedings in England.

Facts

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

What Happened