Miles J’s judgment in Re Sova Capital Ltd [2023] EWHC 452 (Ch) will, like that of Jonathan Hilliard QC in Re Petropavlovsk Plc,be welcomed as a further example of the courts acting to assist insolvency practitioners selling assets in unusual circumstances.

Relief under ss 423-425 Insolvency Act 1986 is not limited to cases of insolvency, as the decision of David Edwards KC, sitting as a High Court judge in the Commercial Court, in Integral Petroleum SA v Petrogat FZE & Ors ([2023] EWHC 44 (Comm)) demonstrates.

In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved confusion in the lower courts over the scope and application of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), which prohibits debtors from discharging debt through bankruptcy when such debt was obtained as a result of fraudulent actions.

Following the important decision in Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2022] (see our summary here), LDC (Portfolio One) Ltd v George Downing Construction

NGI Systems & Solutions Ltd v The Good Box Co Labs Ltd [2023] EWHC 274 (Ch) records the court’s reasons for sanctioning a restructuring plan made between the defendant company, The Good Box Co Labs Limited, its members, and separate classes of its creditors pursuant to section 901F Companies Act 2006. It also deals with other matters arising out of the company’s administration.

Despite the “elegance” of the arguments challenging  the calling of creditors’ meetings on behalf of the former CEO, who argued that the rights of “B” shareholders including himself, would be adversely affected, Trower J found that as neither the contractual terms of the rights themselves nor their economic value would be affected by the plans, he would order calling of the meetings under section 901C(3) Companies Act 2006. There was no real change to the economic value for the B shareholders.  

ICC Judge Barber’s judgment in the case of Purkiss v Kennedy & ors (Re Ethos Solutions Ltd) [2022] EWHC 3098 (Ch) deals with a complex and late application for joinder and to re-amend proceedings. It was handed down following a four day hearing and weighs in at over 200 paragraphs, facts indicative of the unusual nature of the application.

The application before Richard Smith J in Re Prezzo Investco Ltd (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 1679 (Ch) was for sanction of a restructuring plan between the company and certain of its creditors under ss 901F and 901G of Part 26A Companies Act 2006.

In In re Roberts, No. 22-10521, 2022 WL 4592086 (Bankr. D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2022), the Bankruptcy Court of the District of Colorado (the “Bankruptcy Court”) held that a Debtor’s alleged ownership interest in cannabis-related companies did not require a dismissal of the case and that a Chapter 7 trustee could administer the Debtor’s assets. This represents a significant change from prior decisions from this Court, which has usually dismissed any bankruptcy case involving cannabis.

Background

InBailey Tool & Mfg. Co. v. Republic Bus. Credit, LLC, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 3502 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas clarified how aggressive a secured lender can be when enforcing its rights. The 145-page opinion details how a lending arrangement went “terribly wrong” and why awarding millions in damages was warranted.

Background