As we know, the past two years have been a difficult time for many businesses and with such continuing uneconomic uncertainly, it seems there is precious little light at the end of the tunnel yet.

In this article, we consider the potential claims that might be levied at directors of an insolvent company and matters of which directors should be aware.

"Zone of insolvency”

The Royal Court of Guernsey has recently considered an application under the Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008 (the Law) for the Court to approve a contract for the sale of the assets of a Guernsey company in compulsory liquidation. The decision provides helpful guidance for liquidators and creditors as to the issues the Court will take into account in deciding whether to grant such approval.

Background

The impact of Covid-19 on businesses has already been significant, with several high-profile businesses in the UK and the Channel Islands ceasing to trade or entering administration. The sudden drop in custom as a result of restrictions imposed to protect the community from Covid-19 (the Restrictions) have resulted in businesses experiencing severe, if not crippling, cash flow issues.

In Autumn 2018 the States of Guernsey proposed changes to Guernsey’s corporate insolvency regime to come into effect in 2019.  On 15 January 2020 the States of Guernsey enacted these changes with the passing of the Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 (the Ordinance).

The Ordinance brings into effect the proposed changes to create a structured, flexible and transparent regime for company insolvency procedures in Guernsey, as is required in a modern jurisdiction.  A summary of the main changes is set out below.

Administration

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.

In In re Filene’s Basement, LLC,¹ the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware considered the rejection damages a landlord claimant was entitled to pursuant to Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code after the debtor rejected its lease as part of its reorganization plan.