ICC Judge Burton’s judgment in Dale & Ors v BDO LLP (Re NMCN PLC and NMCN Sustainable Solutions Ltd) [2025] EWHC 446 (Ch) follows an administrators’ application under ss 235 and 236 Insolvency Act 1986 for the former company auditors, BDO LLP, to deliver up audit files for 2018 and 2019 to enable the administrators to investigate whether BDO had breached duties owed to the companies. The application was resisted. The points of contention were:
(1) whether, as the companies’ auditors, BDO were an “officer” for the purposes of s 235;
The judgement of Hodge Malek KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, in Marko Ventures Ltd v London Antiaging Clinic Ltd [2025] EWHC 340 (Ch) deals with a contested application for an administration order under para 12(1)(c) Sch B1 Insolvency Act 1986. The order appointing joint administrators was sought in respect of London Antiaging Clinic Ltd by Marko Ventures Ltd, the majority shareholder in and principal funder of the company, which runs a health, beauty and wellbeing clinic in London.
On 26 February 2025, Deputy Master Scher handed down judgment in the case Suman Bhatia v Christopher Purkiss, as liquidator of JD Group Limited [2025] EWHC 359 (Ch). Wedlake Bell LLP (partner Edward Saunders), and Nora Wannagat (Tanfield Chambers) acted for the successful liquidator.
A copy of the judgment is available here.
Background
Starting life as a market trader, Balvinder Shergill went on to run a number of companies, mostly in the furniture business. Two of his early companies used the trading style Houghton Furnishing. After they stopped doing business, Mr Shergill went on to become involved as a director in five other companies.
Section 216 Insolvency Act 1986 provides that a person who has been a director of a company at any time in the 12 months before it goes into insolvent liquidation is prohibited for five years from being a director of, or directly or indirectly being concerned in or taking part in, the promotion, formation or management of a company with the same or similar name to the liquidated company (a “prohibited name”). Section 217 imposes personal liability on a director for debts incurred by a company which acts in breach of s 216.
This is the second in a series of articles on how the changes introduced by the 2024 JCT (Joint Contracts Tribunal) contracts will impact the practical administration of the JCT contractual mechanisms.
In this article, we look specifically at the insolvency related provisions in the 2024 Design and Build (D&B) contract and the 2024 Intermediate Building Contract with Contractor’s design (ICD) contract. We address the updates to the definition of insolvency, the impact of those changes for Employers and Contractors and the related knock-on impact to sub-contracts.
On July 19, 2024, Judge Michael Wiles of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in In re Mercon Coffee Corporation, Case No. 23-11945, invalidating insider releases in a proposed chapter 11 plan on the basis that the releases were improper retention-related transfers.
Judge Wiles found that he could not approve the releases – even though the debtors had promised them and insiders had relied upon that promise – because the releases did not meet the strict requirements of Bankruptcy Code Section 503(c).
In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that the US Bankruptcy Code does not permit a debtor to confirm a chapter 11 plan that releases non-debtors from similar or related claims the creditors could assert directly against them.
In today's rapidly evolving business landscape, businesses find themselves at the intersection of technological innovation and geopolitical and economic turbulence. Despite the increased reliance on software systems and digital infrastructure, it remains peculiar that in many EU Member States there's still no clear framework for handling software licenses in insolvency.
In a recent judgment1, the High Court determined (contrary to the arguments of the affected secured creditor) that a debenture created a floating charge rather than a fixed charge over certain internet protocol (IP) addresses. Whilst elements of the decision are inevitably fact-specific, some broader lessons and reminders can be taken from the judgment which will be of general relevance to lenders when taking security.