We are pleased to share our latest instalment of ML Covered, our monthly round-up of key events relevant to those dealing with Management Liability Policies covering D&O, EPL and PTL-type risks.
Insolvency Service publishes its 2024/25 enforcement actions against directors
The Insolvency Service has published its enforcement outcomes for 2024-25, detailing the enforcement actions taken against directors. The information is not for the entire year but covers the period between April 2024 to December 2024.
Terminating DoCA's (Part 3) – Administrators' Casting Vote
Commissioner of State Revenue v McCabe (No. 2) [2024] FCA 662 ("McCabe")
IMO Academy Construction & Development Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 808 ("Academy Construction")
Summary
Where there is a deadlock between the majority in value of creditors and those creditors with a majority in number on the vote for a DoCA, the administrator has a casting vote.
Before 1998, (i) all student loans from for-profit lenders were dischargeable in bankruptcy, but (ii) student loans backed by the federal government or from non-profits were dischargeable in only these circumstances:
Chapter 11 plans contain various releases -- some in favor of the debtor and some in favor of certain nondebtor third parties. However, while creditors are bound by a Chapter 11 discharge, creditors have options for how to deal with a plan's third-party release.
Key Issues
CHAPTER 11 DISCHARGE
The Competition Act, 2002 mandates the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) to regulate large sized mergers and acquisitions beyond high value thresholds (in terms of assets or turnovers) prescribed for “combinations” under the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act”) to assess whether such transactions could adversely affect competition in the relevant markets, It is an exante process which requires a deep and forwardlooking economic analysis of the competition scenario likely to emerge post such proposed combination.
Following the High Court’s landmark case in 2023 where cryptocurrency was recognised by the Court as property and could form a subject matter of a trust, the High Court recently further clarified the trust relationship between exchanges and their customers. Non-Consenting Customers (NCCs) who did not accept the 2018 Terms and Conditions (T&C) were found to have a proprietary interest in their assets, giving them priority in the liquidation process. Conversely, customers who had agreed to the T&Cs were treated as unsecured creditors.
Ist der Vertragspartner insolvent, stellt sich die Frage nach der Einordnung der offenen Forderungen: Insolvenzforderung oder Masseverbindlichkeit?
Ob man Insolvenz- oder Massegläubiger ist, spielt vor allem wegen der fast immer unterschiedlichen Befriedigungsquote eine große Rolle: Insolvenzforderungen werden nur in Höhe der (meist geringen) Insolvenzquote bedient, während Masseverbindlichkeiten (häufig auch als Masseforderung bezeichnet) grundsätzlich in voller Höhe vorab aus der Insolvenzmasse befriedigt werden.
Bankruptcy-remote LLC Agreement Did Not Impermissibly Restrict
LLC’s Right to File Bankruptcy
In re 301 W. North Ave., LLC, Case No. 24-02741 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
Jan. 6, 2025), the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the chapter 11 case
of a Delaware limited liability company for “cause” under section
1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code because the company had not been
properly authorized to file for chapter 11 relief. The court found that
the underlying LLC agreement prohibited the company from filing a
The Sino-Ocean restructuring plan is the first to be sanctioned in 2025 – but it starts the year off with a very interesting bang. In a relatively short (and commendably clear) judgment, the Court addresses head on:
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (NCLAT), have recently issued judgments in the case of Rishabh Infra v. Sadbhav Engineering Ltd1., which, despite their partially correct conclusions, appear to exhibit significant judicial overreach. These rulings warrant critical scrutiny on several grounds, particularly because their reasoning raises concerns about the implications for litigants, especially operational creditors, within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).