We are pleased to share our latest instalment of ML Covered, our monthly round-up of key events relevant to those dealing with Management Liability Policies covering D&O, EPL and PTL-type risks.
Insolvency Service publishes its 2024/25 enforcement actions against directors
The Insolvency Service has published its enforcement outcomes for 2024-25, detailing the enforcement actions taken against directors. The information is not for the entire year but covers the period between April 2024 to December 2024.
Key developments in 2024
2024 has seen one of the most significant insolvency cases in recent years. In June, Justice Leech handed down his judgment on the claim brought by the liquidators of BHS against certain of its former directors for wrongful trading and misfeasance. This judgment is likely to have important consequences for the D&O market.
It was particularly noteworthy as it was the first time that the directors of a company had been found guilty of the novel claim of 'misfeasant trading'.
Manolete Partners Plc, an insolvency litigation finance company, has successfully claimed against the former director of Just Recruit Group Ltd (Just Recruit) and awarded £918,590. The Insolvency and Companies Court of the High Court found that the director of Just Recruit, Norman Freed, had breached his directorial duties to the company during the business's financial collapse.
Background
Welcome to the second edition of ML Covered, our new monthly round-up of key events that are relevant for those dealing with Management Liability Policies covering D&O, EPL and PTL-type risks.
Latest insolvencies figures & quantifying "trading misfeasance" claims
On 19 August 2024, the High Court handed down its quantum decision in Wright v Chappell [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch), which for the first time sets out the method for quantifying loss relating to "trading misfeasance" claims.
Introduction
On July 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), on whether financial sanctions imposed by securities regulators are dischargeable through bankruptcy. The decision resolves a conflict between Alberta and B.C. jurisprudence and will have a significant impact on the treatment of all administrative orders in bankruptcy proceedings.
The facts
In a decision delivered on 7 June 2024 (2024TALCH02/00950) (the Decision), the Luxembourg District Court provided for substantive clarifications regarding article 10 of the Luxembourg Law of 7 August 2023 on the continuation of businesses and modernisation of insolvency law (the Restructuring Law). This article empowers the Court to appoint judicial agents (mandataires de justice) in case of serious and aggravated misconduct (manquements graves et caractérisés) by the debtor or its corporate bodies, threatening the continuity of the business.
Op 27 mei 2024 is het Wetsvoorstel overgang van onderneming in faillissement in internetconsultatie gegaan (de WOVOF). De WOVOF beoogt de werknemersbescherming bij faillissement te vergroten, met name in geval van een doorstart. De WOVOF introduceert onder andere een verplichting voor de doorstarter om (in beginsel) alle werknemers uit de failliete onderneming over te nemen. Deze en andere maatregelen worden in dit nieuwsbericht nader toegelicht.
Huidige regeling en aanleiding WOVOF
On 27 May 2024, the draft bill on transfer of undertaking in bankruptcy (in Dutch: Wetsvoorstel overgang van onderneming in faillissement, the WOVOF) was made available for internet consultation. The WOVOF aims to increase the protection of employees in case of bankruptcy, and more particular, in case of a restart (in Dutch: doorstart). The WOVOF introduces, amongst other things, an obligation for the acquirer in a restart to (in principle) offer employment to all employees from the bankrupt company. This and other measures will be discussed in detail in this this news blog.
The Belgian Constitutional Court addressed in a recent judgment the treatment of creditors in a collective debt settlement procedure. The central question was whether a different treatment of creditors, depending on whether they benefit from security over financial collateral, can be justified by objective criteria and whether this aligns with the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Since the court finds the different treatment unconstitutional, the judgment impacts the enforcement rights of pledgees of financial collateral granted by private individuals.