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.

InIn Re Lexington Hospitality Group, LLC, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky thwarted a lender’s efforts to control whether its borrower could file bankruptcy. As a condition to the loan, the lender mandated that the borrower’s operating agreement have certain provisions that require the affirmative vote of an “Independent Manager” and 75% of the members to authorize a bankruptcy.

The Delaware bankruptcy court recently decided that a debtor could not assign a trademark license absent the consent of the licensor. The court concluded that federal trademark law and the terms of the license precluded assignment without consent. Because the debtor could not assign the license under any circumstances (consent was not forthcoming), the court held that cause existed to annul the automatic stay to permit the licensor to “move on with its trademark and its business.”

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.

Exculpation provisions in operating agreements must be carefully crafted in order to protect members, managers, directors and officers for breaches of fiduciary duties. In In re Simplexity, LLC, the Chapter 7 trustee sued the former officers and directors (who were also members and/or managers) for failing to act to preserve going concern value and exposing the debtors to WARN Act claims. The defendants argued the exculpation language in the operating agreements shielded against breach of fiduciary duty liability.

It is very common for bankruptcy court orders to provide that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce such orders. Similarly, chapter 11 confirmation orders routinely provide that the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over all orders previously entered in the case. The enforceability of these “retention of jurisdiction” provisions, however, will not rest on the plain language in the order but on the bankruptcy court’s statutory jurisdiction.

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.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court announced that it will review the scope of Bankruptcy Code section 546(e)’s safe harbor provision. Section 546(e) protects from avoidance those transfers that are made “by or to (or for the benefit of)” a financial institution, except where there is actual fraud. The safe harbor is intended to ensure the stability of the securities market in the event of corporate restructurings.