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
In a recent legal development that underscores the intricate interplay between federal bankruptcy law and the cannabis industry, a court case has emerged involving a bankruptcy filing by an employee of a cannabis company. It’s well established that, because cannabis is generally considered a controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), certain cannabis related companies are precluded from obtaining debt relief through bankruptcy. Now individuals employed by cannabis companies might find themselves in the same boat. In Blumsack v. Harrington, 2024 Bankr.
On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (“Court”) confirmed a plan for a cannabis-related business (“Debtor”) to sell its equity interests in a Canadian cannabis company, Lowell Farms, and distribute the proceeds to its creditors.
As the cannabis industry matures, there will be winners and losers. Losers lack access to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Marijuana related assets cannot be sold free and clear of liens and encumbrances via the tried and true bankruptcy section 363 sale, which leaves the loser’s creditors without the best tool to maximize the value of the loser’s assets, and deprives acquirers of a federal court order conveying assets. What’s the state of play, and what’s the alternative for the losers, their creditors, and the companies that would acquire them?
STATE OF PLAY
Bank Asset Auction: Bids for Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. (“SVB”) and its subsidiary Silicon Valley Private Bank, together or separately, in whole or in part, are due by Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 8 p.m. and Friday, March 24, 2023 at 8 p.m. We’ve previously reported that SVB is open for operations for a minimum of ninety days until it is sold or liquidated.
The FDIC has statutory obligations to maximize the net present value return from the sale or disposition of the assets entrusted to it as receiver, and to minimize the amount of any loss realized.[1] Today we examine the FDIC’s efforts to fulfill its mandate through the transfer of assets to bridge-banks, Silicon Valley Bank, N.A. (“SVB”) and Signature Bank, N.A. (“SB”).