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.

The High Court has ordered two former directors of British Home Stores (BHS) to pay compensation of £110 million in respect of misfeasance claims brought by the former retailer’s liquidators (Wright v Chappell [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch)).

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. But we are always looking for more input. So, if you’d like to participate in the drafting process, let me know.

A recent ruling involved the petitioner challenging an income tax reassessment notice issued after the approval of a resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Hon’ble High Court of New Delhi in the case of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.,(2024 SCC OnLine Del 5459), dated August 7, 2024, held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, income tax reassessment for periods before the plan’s approval is impermissible.

Insolvency & Restructuring Bulletin

A recent court decision has provided clarity on the application of the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (“WEPPA”) to former employees of companies undergoing restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The central issue was whether WEPPA applies to employees who were terminated as a result of a reverse vesting order (“RVO”).

Background

India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (code), has revolutionised the country’s approach to insolvency, establishing a structured framework for resolving distressed assets while incorporating elements of inclusivity and accessibility. This legislation has become fundamental for businesses and financial institutions, especially as India further integrates into the global economy. The code’s protection of foreign creditors is particularly significant, as it ensures that foreign investors can confidently engage with the Indian economy without hindrance or undue trepidation.

Disagreement regarding the interpretation of section 365(c) of the Bankruptcy Code has led to divergent rulings among the bankruptcy and federal circuit courts regarding whether a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor can assume an executory contract or unexpired lease that is unassignable under applicable non-bankruptcy law without the counterparty's consent—even where the debtor has no intention of assigning the agreement to a third party.

The High Court has scrutinised the validity of a Declaration of Trust and the enforcement of charging orders. Wade v Singh sheds light on the intricate balance between property rights, trust law, and creditor protection in an insolvency. The case, centered around a property known as "the Oaks," involved the liquidators of MSD Cash & Carry Plc (in liquidation) seeking to enforce charging orders against properties owned by various family members involved in the business to satisfy a significant judgment debt.

Background of the Case