We examine the findings of the High Court’s decisions and discuss the lessons which directors of distressed businesses should take from them

The collapse of BHS in April 2016 remains one of the most extraordinary corporate failures in recent memory. Eight years on from the commencement of insolvency proceedings, and following a lengthy trial, the High Court has issued an expansive judgment on claims brought by the joint liquidators of four companies in the group against two former directors.

Factual background

I’m serving on a Drafting Committee of the Uniform Law Commission for a uniform law on assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”). A draft of such a uniform law is coming together, with lots of input from many people and organizations. And we are always looking for more input!

“A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1192 [Subchapter V], 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not dischargean individual debtor from any debt— . . .”

11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (emphasis added).

Bankruptcy courts applying the foregoing language in the early days of Subchapter V found such language to be clear and unambiguous: that only “an individual debtor” is affected.

Recently, the High Court of Delhi, reinforced the application of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“). Section 32A of the IBC states that the liability of a corporate debtor (“CD“) for an offence committed prior to commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) shall cease and the CD shall not be prosecuted for such an offence from the date the resolution plan (“Plan“) has been approved by the adjudicating authority (“AA”).

There have been a string of high-profile celebrity bankruptcies over the decades, and most recently, Katie Price. A common theme among these celebrities, many of whom were former contestants on the ITV hit show “I’m a Celebrity,” is that they were bankrupted by HMRC for unpaid taxes.

In MaIlinckrodt PLC v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 23-1111, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court decision finding a debtor’s obligation to pay a perpetual royalty was an unsecured claim that was dischargeable in bankruptcy. The decision is a cautionary tale for contract counterparties that negotiate future payment rights.

Background

A warm welcome to the Summer edition of Conyers Coverage. The whirlwind that is the Cayman Islands (re)insurance industry continues to blow with gusto! To keep you updated on recent developments, we include various items from our Insurance, Regulatory and Litigation teams, we ponder the possibilities and implications for the Cayman Islands in potentially securing Qualified Jurisdiction status with the NAIC and lots more beyond. We think there’s something for everyone in our latest edition so please dig in.

To NAIC or Not to NAIC?

Pierre Dzakpasu, Anne Jesudason and Florence W Y Li, Mayer Brown

This is an extract from the 2025 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

Rabindra S Nathan, Shearn Delamore & Co

This is an extract from the 2025 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight

Geld zurück trotz erbrachter Leistung wegen zu hoher Deckungslücke des Schuldners. Aber wann?