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

11 U.S.C. § 1191(c)(2) provides (emphasis added):

• “(c) . . . the condition that a plan be fair and equitable . . . includes . . . (2) . . . all of the projected disposable income of the debtor to be received in the 3-year period, or such longer period not to exceed 5 years as the court may fix, . . . will be applied to make payments under the plan.”

There is little-to-no guidance in the Bankruptcy Code on what “as the court may fix” might mean. So, that meaning is left to the courts to decide.

Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), an individual debtor may be denied a discharge, in its entirely, for making a transfer “with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” a creditor or the trustee.

On April 17, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Michigan ruled:

A “silent” creditor in Subchapter V is one who does not vote on the debtor’s plan and does not object to that plan. The “silent” creditor is a problem for Subchapter V cases.

The Problem

Here’s the problem:

Here are a couple discharge-related bankruptcy questions I’ve heard of late, along with an answer.

Question 1. Why are individuals, but not corporations, eligible for a Chapter 7 discharge?

• §727(a)(1) says, “the court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—(1) the debtor is not an individual” (emphasis added).

Question 2. Why are individuals, but not corporations, subject to § 523(a) discharge exceptions in Chapter 11?

Can non-compete and confidentiality protections in a rejected franchise agreement be discharged in bankruptcy?

The answer is, “No,” according to In re Empower Central Michigan, Inc.[Fn. 1]

Facts

Debtor is an automotive repair shop.

Debtor operates under a Franchise Agreement with Autolab Franchising, LLC. The Franchise Agreement has a non-compete provision, and there is a separate-but-related confidentiality agreement.