Introduction:

On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022]. The decision is the first from the Supreme Court to address when, and in what circumstances, company directors owe a duty to consider the interests of the company’s creditors (‘’the creditor duty’’).

Many cryptocurrency lenders have declared bankruptcy. These loss events are indicators of the significant losses the cryptocurrency market has experienced this year.

For investors who have suffered, an important consideration is how to capitalize on these losses. Accordingly, this article will analyze the recent Celsius Network (“Celsius”) bankruptcy and the tax strategy of writing off bad debt.

The Celsius Bankruptcy

Introduction

The case of John Doyle Construction Ltd v Erith Contractors Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1452 (07 October 2021) saw the Court of Appeal re-explore the conflict between the adjudication process and insolvency following the Supreme Court decision ofBresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale Ltd.

According to press reports, utilities contractor NMCN (formerly North Midland Construction) plc and its subsidiary NMCN Sustainable Solutions Limited, have gone into administration.

Administration is the procedure by which a company that is, or is likely to become, insolvent can be reorganised or have its assets realised for the benefit of creditors. The primary aim of an administration is to rescue the company so that it can continue to trade as a going concern. If this is not possible, a company may go into administration for two other purposes:

As Andrew Jones and Daniela Miklova report, the recent case of Ristorante Limited t/a Bar Massimo v Zurich Insurance plc [2021] EWHC 2538 is a useful insight into how the Court will interpret the questions and answers in insurers’ proposal forms in coverage disputes. It also shows how insurers can lose potential policy defences through the drafting of proposal form questions going wrong.

In Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc[1] [Chandos], the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) reaffirmed the common law anti-deprivation rule in Canada.

Il est notoire que le contrat, en raison de son caractère obligatoire, sera considéré comme étant la loi des parties [1].

Historically, an assignment of claims pursuant to s. 38 of Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”)[1] has only been used in the context of an assignment in bankruptcy. For instance, the use of s.

In its most recent decision, Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc.[1], the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) reaffirmed the existence of the common law anti-deprivation rule in Canada.