Despite the Treasury’s comparison of independent forecasts for the UK economy showing an overall upturn for January 2018, there appears to be a nasty outbreak of bad weather looming. Close on the heels of the reported financial woes of Toys R Us and House of Fraser comes the news of the fashion retailer New Look and now, massively, Carillion.

The recent decision in Leeds v Lemos may create significant problems for Trustees in Bankruptcy as they attempt to fulfil their duty of realising a Bankrupt’s estate for the benefit of his creditors.

The case centred on the wish of the Trustee in Bankruptcy to rely on documents that the Bankrupt (and some third parties) claimed were privileged. The Trustee in Bankruptcy therefore asked the Court to compel the Bankrupt to waive privilege, so that the documents could be referred to in legal proceedings..

When creditors are demanding payment and money is tight the easiest thing to do is pay those who are shouting the loudest. Often HMRC debts, including Winding Up Petitions, are ignored in favour of paying suppliers so that a business can keep going. However, ignoring HMRC can lead to unavoidable failure of a company.

A recent case shows how a company’s Articles of Association, a document which defines the duties and responsibilities of members, must be adhered to when directors are exercising their powers.

The court had to consider whether a sole director of a company, whose articles required two directors for its board meeting to be quorate, could validly pass a resolution to appoint administrators under the Insolvency Act 1986 and, if not, whether the Duomatic principle could validate the appointment.

In the case of Newwatch Ltd v Bennett, the court ruled that After The Event insurance (ATE) policies could not be used as adequate security for costs by the claimant companies who were based in Denmark and Jersey.

A recent decision in the High Court has seen an application for pre-action disclosure of an insurance policy dismissed because the defendant was not insolvent.

Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company owned a warehouse that was damaged by a fire caused by Dornoch. They argued that their claim was highly likely to win but that, if it did, it would cause Dornoch to become insolvent.

Peel Port therefore sought ‘pre-action disclosure’, meaning Dornoch would have to disclose applicable insurance cover information to Peel Port before they decided whether to proceed.

Intercreditor agreements between multiple lenders are part and parcel of lending to a company with several tranches of debt. Under section 510 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), “[a] subordination agreement is enforceable in a case under this title to the same extent that such agreement is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” 11 U.S.C. § 510(a) (West 2017).

The sole shareholder of several closely held corporate entities engages in a fraudulent transfer by extinguishing one entity’s right to payment from a third party in exchange for the release of liabilities owed by other entities to that same third party. In Motorworld, Inc. v. William Benkendorf, et al., __ N.J. __ (Mar. 30, 2017), the New Jersey Supreme Court voided such a transfer against a Chapter 7 debtor corporation whose sole asset was a $600,000 loan receivable purportedly cancelled by the release.

The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017)1 on March 21, reversing the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of an order approving the distribution of the proceeds of settlement of bankruptcy estate causes of action to general unsecured creditors via structured dismissal, with no distribution to holders of priority wage claims.

The Court framed the question presented, and its ruling, very narrowly—twice. First:

In a very recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that a negative inference to an exception to a negative covenant prevented a company from undertaking a proposed restructuring transaction. We find the case unique not because of the result necessarily, but rather because the court used the negative inference to override another express provision in the Credit Agreement.