ICC Judge Burton’s judgment in Dale & Ors v BDO LLP (Re NMCN PLC and NMCN Sustainable Solutions Ltd) [2025] EWHC 446 (Ch) follows an administrators’ application under ss 235 and 236 Insolvency Act 1986 for the former company auditors, BDO LLP, to deliver up audit files for 2018 and 2019 to enable the administrators to investigate whether BDO had breached duties owed to the companies. The application was resisted. The points of contention were:

(1) whether, as the companies’ auditors, BDO were an “officer” for the purposes of s 235;

The judgement of Hodge Malek KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, in Marko Ventures Ltd v London Antiaging Clinic Ltd [2025] EWHC 340 (Ch) deals with a contested application for an administration order under para 12(1)(c) Sch B1 Insolvency Act 1986. The order appointing joint administrators was sought in respect of London Antiaging Clinic Ltd by Marko Ventures Ltd, the majority shareholder in and principal funder of the company, which runs a health, beauty and wellbeing clinic in London.

On 26 February 2025, Deputy Master Scher handed down judgment in the case Suman Bhatia v Christopher Purkiss, as liquidator of JD Group Limited [2025] EWHC 359 (Ch). Wedlake Bell LLP (partner Edward Saunders), and Nora Wannagat (Tanfield Chambers) acted for the successful liquidator.

A copy of the judgment is available here.

Background

Starting life as a market trader, Balvinder Shergill went on to run a number of companies, mostly in the furniture business. Two of his early companies used the trading style Houghton Furnishing. After they stopped doing business, Mr Shergill went on to become involved as a director in five other companies.

Section 216 Insolvency Act 1986 provides that a person who has been a director of a company at any time in the 12 months before it goes into insolvent liquidation is prohibited for five years from being a director of, or directly or indirectly being concerned in or taking part in, the promotion, formation or management of a company with the same or similar name to the liquidated company (a “prohibited name”). Section 217 imposes personal liability on a director for debts incurred by a company which acts in breach of s 216.

To encourage vendors and other creditors to continue doing business with financially distressed entities, the Bankruptcy Code includes various defenses to litigation brought by a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") seeking to avoid pre-bankruptcy payments to such entities. One of these defenses shields from avoidance transfers made to pay debts incurred in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and the transferee.

Mitigating risk of loss associated with a bankruptcy filing should be an element of any commercial transaction, especially if it involves a sale or license of intellectual property rights. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provides a stark reminder of the consequences of when it is not. In In re Mallinckrodt PLC, 99 F.4th 617 (3d Cir.

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the scope of the provision, including its limitation to transactions involving "financial institutions" as transferors or transferees, its preemption of avoidance litigation that could have been commenced by or on behalf of creditors under applicable non-bankruptcy law, and its application to non-public transactions.

A bedrock principle underlying chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is that creditors, shareholders, and other stakeholders should be provided with adequate information to make an informed decision to either accept or reject a chapter 11 plan. For this reason, the Bankruptcy Code provides that any "solicitation" of votes for or against a plan must be preceded or accompanied by stakeholders' receipt of a "disclosure statement" approved by the bankruptcy court explaining the background of the case as well as the key provisions of the chapter 11 plan.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down three bankruptcy rulings to finish the Term ended in July 2024. The decisions address the validity of nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans, the standing of insurance companies to object to "insurance neutral" chapter 11 plans, and the remedy for overpayment of administrative fees in chapter 11 cases to the Office of the U.S. Trustee. We discuss each of them below.

U.S. Supreme Court Bars Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases in Chapter 11 Plans