Introduction                                                

From 1 November 2023, bankruptcy estates are required to be administered by Private Trustees in Bankruptcy ("PTIBs"), except for cases where the Official Assignee ("OA") considers there is public interest and consents to be appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy.

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?

The UK Government's abandonment of the case will come as a relief to non-executive directors who feared being held to unrealistic standards

The Insolvency Service (IS), acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, commenced disqualification proceedings against five former non-executive directors (NEDs) of Carillion plc in January 2021, following the compulsory liquidation of the Carillion Group in January 2018. Last month on the eve of trial, the IS discontinued its disqualification proceedings against the NEDs.

The answer to that question and with a huge sigh of relief is thankfully not, following the Supreme Court finding that an administrator of a company appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) is not an “officer” of the company within the meaning of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”).

Recent teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada court in Canada v Canada North Group Inc., 2021 SCC 30 [Canada North] had confirmed that the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (‘CCAA’) courts could grant super-priority charges (e.g. interim financing, administration charge, or directors’ and officers’ charges) ranking in priority to s.

In contrast with a majority of bankruptcy courts that routinely dismiss cannabis-related cases for perceived violations of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California in the recent opinionIn re Hacienda, No. 2:22-BK-15163-NB, (Bankr. C.D. Cal. July 11, 2023), refused to conform to the same historical standard. Instead, the Bankruptcy Court struck down the U.S. trustee’s motion to dismiss not once but twice in favor of confirming a marijuana business’ Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.

Background

If an employer intends to make 20 or more employees redundant, at one establishment, within a 90-day period, they must notify the Secretary of State at least 30 days before the first dismissal, as per Section 193(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”). Failure to adhere to this requirement is a criminal offence. This legislation has been of great concern to insolvency practitioners who are often dealing with companies in a precarious position and do not have the luxury of time to comply with Section 193(2) TULRCA.

De Hoge Raad heeft zich uitgelaten over de vraag in hoeverre er rekening moet worden gehouden met de draagkracht van een rechtspersoon bij het opleggen van een boete. De zaak waarin deze vraag speelde, gaat over een bedrijf dat is veroordeeld wegens het meermalen medeplegen van valsheid in geschrifte. In hoger beroep heeft het Openbaar Ministerie een boete gevorderd van 135.000 euro.

On 1 November 2023, the Supreme Court has overturned the 2021 Divisional Court judgment in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another to hold that administrators do not fall within the meaning of a "director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the company" under s194(3) the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULCRA 1992).

This ideal is floating around:

• upon removal of a Subchapter V debtor from possession, for fraud or other cause,
• the Subchapter V trustee has no expanded right, power, function or duty beyond operating debtor’s business (the “Ideal”).

This Ideal is both:

• contrary to unambiguous language of the Bankruptcy Code, as a matter of law; and
• in Never-Never Land, as a matter of practice.

I’ll try to explain.

This is a truism: