In Winnington Networks Communications Ltd v HMRC^[1], the Chancery Division Companies Court (Nicholas Le Poidevin QC) refused the taxpayer company's application to have HMRC's winding-up petitions dismissed, as it had failed to provide evidence that it had a real prospect of successfully disputing the debt claimed by HMRC.

Background

This is the fifth in a series of Alerts regarding the proposals made by the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Reform Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcies. This alert covers the Commission’s recommendations regarding the now predominant practice of selling substantially all of the debtor’s assets as a going concern, free of all claims, at the outset of a bankruptcy case. The process, known as a “363 Sale” for the Bankruptcy Code section that applies, has been hailed as a job-saving measure and condemned for giving all value to lenders and none to other creditors.

In Smailes and another v McNally and another^[i]the High Court refused the claimant's application for relief from sanctions, finding the claimant's failure in respect of its disclosure obligations under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 31) amounted to a significant and serious breach of an "unless order".

On 22 April 2015 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, which was heard in October last year.  In short it decided that: 1) defendant directors cannot raise illegality as a defence to a claim by a company where the directors themselves acted wrongfully; and 2) a claim in fraudulent trading under Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 213)has extra-territorial effect.

Background

In SwissMarineCorporation Ltd v OW Supply & Trading[1], the High Court refused to grant an anti-suit injunction restraining Danish insolvency proceedings. This case provides a useful discussion of the circumstances in which the court are likely to grant an anti-suit injunction, and in particular where there are jurisdiction issues involving elements of both civil and insolvency proceedings.

Will Congress Finally Act?

This is the fourth in a series of Alerts regarding the proposals made by the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Reform Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcies. We discuss here the Commission’s efforts to require that debtor’s management act in a more transparent fashion. For copies of this or any prior articles about the Commission, please contact any BakerHostetler bankruptcy attorney.

This is the fourth in a series of Alerts regarding the proposals made by the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Reform Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcies. We discuss here the Commission’s efforts to require that debtor’s management act in a more transparent fashion. For copies of this or any prior articles about the Commission, please contact any BakerHostetler bankruptcy attorney.

Will Congress Finally Act?

This is the third in a series of Alerts regarding the proposals made by the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Commission to Reform Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcies. It covers the Commission’s recommendations about the fiduciary obligations of a Chapter 11 debtor’s directors and officers and proposed changes to typical defenses asserted to state causes of action. For copies of this or any prior articles about the Commission, please contact any BakerHostetler bankruptcy attorney.

Director and Officer Fiduciary Duties in Chapter 11

This is the second in a series of Alerts regarding the proposals made by the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Select Commission to Reform Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcies. It covers the Commission’s recommendations about the paying of “critical vendors” and other unsecured creditors at the very beginning of a bankruptcy case. The Commission’s recommendations are set forth below. For copies of this Alert, or the prior article about the Commission’s recommendations regarding secured lenders, please contact any BakerHostetler bankruptcy attorney.

In the recent case of HMRC v Munir & Others[1], HMRC successfully applied to the Court for committal of three company officers for contempt of court where an order appointing a provisional liquidator was knowingly breached.

 Background