I’m reading a U.S. circuit court’s recent bankruptcy opinion that cites Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011). I’m startled by that and blurt out (to myself), “Who cites Stern anymore?!” and “Is Stern still a thing?!” and “I thought Stern has been narrowed to nearly nothing?!”

We wrote earlier this year about the rise in insolvencies in the UK at the end of the summer, as persistent inflation, the pain of increasing interest rates, higher energy bills and the end of pandemic measures all took their toll.

In Lehman Brothers (PTG) Ltd (In Administration), the court considered whether to grant an order extending the administration of Lehman Brothers (PTG) Ltd (the “Company”) for a further two years and in doing so, provided some useful observations about when a court will grant an extension where a company is in distribution mode.

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

The Kingdom introduced its first ever bankruptcy law in 2018 which has created a foundation for a business rescue culture in Saudi Arabia. Companies undergoing financial difficulties are equipped with the tools that allow them to either trade out of a difficult period or liquidate the business in a manner which does not leave creditors out of pocket. More recently, to complement the existing insolvency regime, rules of cross-border bankruptcy proceedings came into effect on 16 December 2022 (“Rules”).

A recently published Bill proposes amendments to the existing collective redundancy regime in insolvency situations. If enacted, the Bill will deliver on key Programme for Government commitments detailed in the Plan of Action – Collective Redundancies following Insolvency.

In the recent case of Re LYHFL Limited [2023] EWHC 2585 (Ch), the High Court has considered the proper interpretation of paragraph 12(1)(b), Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, by which directors can apply to court for an order putting the company into administration.

Drawing on previous authorities concerning this and similar provisions, the Court concluded that an individual director has no power to make such an application without the approval of the majority of the company's directors and a valid board resolution.

Facts

In the realm of corporate governance, addressing misconduct within a company becomes particularly critical when an insolvency practitioner is appointed. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) sheds light on the intricacies of this scenario, outlining key points for stakeholders to be aware of and steps to take.

As the festive season approaches, it is time to take stock of the three 2023 most important decisions of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) on claw-back issues in insolvency.

The Consumer Duty is one of the most significant pieces of regulation to land in the financial services industry for some time and represents a major shift in how firms will need to view customer outcomes and proactively address harm in the retail market. For Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) appointed over a regulated firm that has products within the scope of the duty, this will form part of the regulatory obligations with which the firm (and the IP) will need to ensure compliance.