This week:

Overview

The High Court has handed down a 533-page judgment in proceedings brought by the liquidators of BHS against its former directors for wrongful trading and misfeasance trading, finding them personally liable for at least £18 million. The case is of great significance to directors of distressed companies. We analyse some key points arising.

Click here to view the judgment.

Background

Restructuring Plans: should an opposing creditor be granted security for costs? Might that open the floodgates where companies are by definition “distressed,” or was this particular Plan more akin to ordinary adversarial litigation? Read our summary below.

On 11 June 2024, the judgment of Re BHS Group Limited (In Liquidation) (BHS) was handed down by Leech J in the English High Court, bringing in key developments and clarifications on directors duties in the zone of insolvency.

This is especially relevant in offshore jurisdictions such as Guernsey where English insolvency legislation is often replicated in local legislation. English common law remains highly persuasive in relation to directors duties and claims by liquidators against former directors are relatively common.

Summary of claims

In a case brought by the liquidators, the High Court found two former directors liable for wrongful trading; that is, continuing to trade when they knew or should have known that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvency (section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986).

The High Court has handed down judgment against two former directors of a number of BHS group companies. The Joint Liquidators, Anthony Wright and Geoffrey Rowley (both of FRP Advisory) brought claims against Lennart Henningson and Dominic Chandler for wrongful trading, misfeasance trading and individual misfeasance.

Wrongful trading

Judgment was handed down last week on the substantial directors' duties and wrongful trading claims brought against former directors of various BHS companies^[1].

Matthew Czyzyk, Natalie Blanc, Natalie Raine and Emily Ma, Ropes & Gray

This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

Evolution of the super scheme

FRST GROUP RESTRUCTURING PLAN SANCTIONED

EVOLUTION OF THE SUPER SCHEME

In brief

Following the second longest sanction hearing in restructuring plan history, and the only sanction hearing yet to morph into a second convening hearing, the Part 26A restructuring plan proposed by Project Lietzenburger Strae Holdco S..r.L (plan company) has been sanctioned.1 The plan is part of a highly contested, complex, cross-border restructuring of more than EUR1 billion of debt documented under German law.

It involved