The English Court has, for only the second time, made a compensation order under the Company Directors' Disqualification Act 1986 against a disqualified director.

Background

The Court of Appeal recently considered when precisely a company had given a preference within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986 – a question of timing which may impact on whether an insolvency practitioner can later unwind the preferential treatment for the benefit of creditors as a whole.

Here we look at what a preference is, and when it is deemed to be given.

Preferences

On 14 March 2023, a new law (Tijdelijke wet transparantie turboliquidatie) was adopted by the Dutch legislator. This law introduces a filing obligation of the managing board that will apply to shortened liquidation procedures applied as per 15 November 2023. Under this obligation, the managing board of the company must file certain (financial) documents with the Dutch trade register and inform creditors of the company of this filing.

Other than the usual post termination restrictions following a director’s departure, one would assume that directors would no longer be subject to any obligations upon their resignation. Whilst this is strictly true, in that directors’ duties will generally no longer apply once they cease to be a director, there are, however, a few instances whereby directors may still find themselves liable even after stepping down.

Can I even resign?

The case ofLiberty Commodities Ltd v Citibank NA London & Ors [2023] EWHC 2020 (Ch) provides a helpful reminder of the principles that the court will adopt when dealing with a winding up petition – particularly where there are supporting creditors.

This week:

La nueva regulación concursal permite a los acreedores de una compañía insolvente convertirse en nuevos dueños con un plan de reestructuración homologado por un juez. El caso Celsa, el primero en el que unos fondos han presentado un plan hostil para hacerse con la empresa, anima a que las empresas familiares tomen medidas de manera anticipada.

It is a cornerstone of English insolvency law and practice that creditors of a company in financial difficulty should share rateably (“pari passu”) in that company's assets. Put at its simplest, creditors with security should be paid before creditors with no security and unsecured creditors should share rateably between each other. Where an unconnected and unsecured creditor is paid before another creditor in the same category, that payment risks being set aside as a "preference", should the company subsequently enter liquidation or administration. But when does a preference occur?

In an application filed by Vishram Narayan Panchpor, resolution professional of Blue Frog Media Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) in the matter of M/s Blue Frog Media Private Limited¹ for approval of a resolution plan, the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT Mumbai”) ruled that the object of Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) requires a resolution professional to conduct adequate due diligence on a prospective resolution applicant and its related parti

Amid high interest rates and economic uncertainty, it is not surprising that corporate restructurings are on the rise. In fact, restructuring activity in the first half of 2023 more than doubled from the corresponding period in 2022.¹