The joint liquidators of a company, which had been compulsorily wound up in England and Wales, sought orders under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”) for production of documents and an account of dealings with the company, in respect of companies in Italy. The question for the Court was whether s236 IA86 had extraterritorial effect. The problem for the court was that there was competing first instance decisions both for and against.

A bankruptcy petition was dismissed on the application of the debtor, who claimed that a guarantee document was not a valid deed, the transaction which was purported to be guaranteed was a sham and that the debtor’s signature had been forged. Whilst the court accepted that there was a substantial dispute as regards the transaction (payment of fees of US$500 billion!) and that the form of guarantee was invalid, as no evidence had been called to show that the debtor’s signature had been forged, the bankruptcy petition hearing was not the right forum to decide the matter.

The long running question of whether a contractual dispute relating to a breach of a construction contract can be the subject of Adjudication, if one of the parties is in Liquidation, and there are cross claims for insolvency set off was settled by The Supreme Court. Needless to say the two parties both claimed breach of contract and damages. The contract allowed for a dispute to be resolved by Arbitration which the sub-contractor Bresco wished to pursue. This was opposed on the basis of incompatibility between insolvency set-off, and an argument that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction.

In this case the court was asked to allow the convening of a meeting of creditors to consider and approve a scheme of arrangement by telephone and video conference in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. The meeting was proposed to take place on 20 July 2020 when there was likely to be an easing of the lockdown measure. The court approved the application and made the necessary order.

A similar order was made in a more recent case: Re ColourOz Investment 2 LLC and other companies.

The court held in this case that a costs order in favour of the debtor, in respect of a discontinued bankruptcy petition for the same debt, due to the petitioner, could be set off against the sums due in respect of a second bankruptcy petition brought against the debtor by the same petitioner. The debtor had argued that the petition should be stayed until the previous costs order had been paid.

The case concerned an insolvency practice which had been placed into compulsory liquidation. The Applicants had been appointed liquidators. However, between the presentation of the petition and the winding up order, the assets of the insolvency practice were transferred to another practice, resulting in a claim under section 127 IA86 to declare the transfer void. In addition, the liquidators sought to have transferred to themselves the insolvency cases of the two practitioners of the former practice. The application was by way of the block transfer procedure.

Everyone, including the least empathic in our society (aka, lawyers), knows that we should seek to uphold the golden rule and “do unto others…” with respect to family, friends, and acquaintances, but does this also apply in the corporate world? Apparently so, as a Delaware bankruptcy court just ruled that preferred shareholders with a bankruptcy-filing blocking right (also known as a “Golden Share”) must consider the effects on other shareholders and all other creditors when exercising such right.

Analyzing the inner workings of the elements required for the securities contract “safe harbor” protection under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court for the SDNY dismissed a complaint seeking to recover approximately US$1 billion in allegedly fraudulent transfers brought against various transferees as part of the Boston Generating Chapter 11 case.

Since publishing our first article about the impact of Covid-19 on commercial contracts the Government has published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, which is set to bring in a number of sweeping changes to UK insolvency law.

No, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Maxus Energy Corp. In Maxus, the defendant, Vista Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (“Vista” or the “Defendant”), a designated critical vendor, sought summary judgement dismissing the preference complaint. The Court denied summary judgement finding that the critical vendor status did not per se insulate Vista from preference actions.

Background