In Hunt v Singh, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in BTI v Sequana (see our alert) in deciding when the directors' duty to creditors arose.

Background

Marylebone Warwick Balfour Management Limited (the Company), entered a tax avoidance scheme between 2002 and 2010 which the directors, on professional advice, believed to be valid.

In practice, bankruptcy of a defendant employer during court proceedings related to employee receivables may be confusing for both the parties of a dispute and the courts handling the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal has recently referred to established case law that the court will only interfere with the act of an officeholder “if he has done something so utterly unreasonable and absurd that no reasonable man would have done it”.

While the judge in the lower court had not made any error of law, on the facts there were identifiable flaws in the judge's reasoning that the trustees' decision not to join in the proceedings was perverse.

The judge had failed to recognise that:

In NSP Unsgaard (Pty) Ltd v Master of the High Court, Cape Town and Another, the applicant, NSP Unsgaard (Pty) Ltd sought to review and set aside a decision of the first respondent, the Master of the High Court made on 28 January 2022 in terms of section 46 of the Insolvency Act,1936 (“the Act”). The decision in question permitted the liquidators of the second respondent, Green Tissue (Pty) Ltd ), to disregard a set off applied by NSP in its dealings with Green Tissue before the latter’s liquidation.

On 31 August 2023, the Romanian government passed emergency Government Ordinance (GEO 2023), which extends by 90 days the validity of the insurance policies issued by Euroins Romania Asigurare-Reasigurare S.A., which is now in bankruptcy. Prior to the issuance of GEO 2023, motor third liability insurance policies (MTPL) issued by Euroins Romania were due to expire on 8 September 2023 while the guarantee policies issued by this insurer were due to expire within 150 days after the opening of its bankruptcy procedure (i.e. 7 November 2023).

The judgement raises important questions for directors faced with substantial liabilities

Three recent Hong Kong first instance court decisions have left undecided the question of whether a winding-up petition will trump an agreement to arbitrate when it comes to a winding-up and particularly in the context of cross-claims. A Court of Final Appeal decision this spring had seemed to provide pointers that the parties' agreement would be upheld but the issue – particularly when it comes to unmeritorious and late arbitration applications – is dividing the courts.

“(b) Duties.—The [Subchapter V] trustee shall— . . . (7)facilitatethe development of a consensual plan of reorganization.”

• From 11 U.S.C § 1183(b)(7)(emphasis added).

Facilitation is, by statute, a duty of every Subchapter V trustee—something a Subchapter V trustee must do. But the nature and boundaries of the facilitation role have always been fuzzy and, therefore, misunderstood.

My purpose in this multi-part series is to provide observations on the facilitation role.

Restructuring plans can provide companies in the early stages of financial difficulty with a flexible alternative to entering a formal insolvency procedure

Under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), companies or groups encountering financial difficulties affecting their ability to carry on business can propose a compromise or arrangement (a restructuring plan) which mitigates or eliminates the effects of those financial difficulties.

A "Liquidation Preference" is a clause in investment and shareholders’ agreements that determines the order in which proceeds from a liquidity event (such as a trade sale or asset sale) are distributed among different shareholders. This clause often pertains primarily to preferred shareholders, such as venture capital investors.