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

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.