There have been many reported cases in the bankruptcies of Mr and Mrs Brake (the “Brakes”) including the recent case of Patley Wood Farm LLP v Kicks [2023] EWCA Civ 901 where the Court of Appeal considered an application under s303 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA 1986”) against a decision of the trustees in bankruptcy of the Brakes (the “Trustees”).

The Supreme Court’s judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and ors^[1] (“Sequana”) is a key decision on the law surrounding directors’ duties.

The High Court was required to consider the Supreme Court’s Sequana judgment in Hunt v Singh (below).

What did we learn from Sequana?

Why calculating potential claims under s214 Insolvency Act 1986 can be far from simple

Introduction

In this article we explore the key trends which are currently shaping the landscape of private wealth disputes, including mental capacity as a central theme in private wealth disputes, trust insolvency and disputes relating to trustee investments.

Mental capacity

Mental capacity is increasingly a central theme on the landscape of private wealth disputes. Why? The starting point is that there is, more so than at any point previously, a wider recognition of the seismic consequences of establishing mental incapacity on the part of the relevant decision maker.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has provided further guidance on the new restructuring officer (RO) regime under section 91B of the Companies Act (2023 Revision) (the Act), which came into force on 31 August 2022.

In Re Aubit International (Unreported, 4 October 2023), the Grand Court dismissed a petition to appoint restructuring officers and found that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief requested on the basis that there was no credible evidence of a rational restructuring proposal with reasonable prospects of success.

Overview

In the recent case of Brake & Anor v Chedington Court Estate Limited [2023] UKSC 29, the Supreme Court has clarified the categories of persons who have standing to make a challenge to the conduct of a trustee in bankruptcy under s303 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”). The Supreme Court confirmed that its decision will also apply to creditors and others seeking to challenge the actions of a liquidator under s168(5) of the Act. The decision will be welcomed by practitioners.

Summary

Trustees in bankruptcy can often come up against challenges in dealing with obstructive bankrupts. A bankrupt might ignore communications and requests for interview, fail to disclose information about their assets, or provide partial cooperation which fails to offer any substantive assistance.

The Privy Council has considered the question of whether an agreement to settle disputes arising out of a shareholders' agreement by arbitration prevents a party to the agreement pursuing a petition to wind up the company on just and equitable grounds.

Background

The recent ex-tempore judgment of Kawaley J in Atom Holdings¹ in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands serves as a timely reminder to practitioners and industry participants alike that obtaining an adjournment of a winding-up petition² requires cogent evidence demonstrating good reason(s) for delaying what is otherwise the collective right of creditors to seek relief via court intervention.