Could a director of an insolvent company, who was held to be in breach of his directorial duties, be ordered to draw down his personal pension benefits to pay a judgment debt?

Nicola Sharp of Rahman Ravelli outlines a case where an individual’s knowledge of a tax evasion scheme was key

A cellphone company director lost his bid to challenge a £1.7 million-plus award against him for VAT fraud when the High Court said he had actual knowledge of his firm's tax evasion scheme.

In Bhatia v Purkiss [2023] EWHC 775, the High Court rejected an appeal from Deepak Bhatia, the company director of the now-defunct phone company JD Group Ltd, against a ruling from the Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC).

Adler Group S.A. (together with its subsidiaries, the “Group”) owns and manages a portfolio of multi-family residential rental properties in Germany. The Group has faced financial headwinds caused by a downturn in the German property market and a negative global macroeconomic landscape exacerbated by, amongst other things, the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing war in Ukraine.

In this week’s TGIF, we consider the recent case of Re 52 The Esplanade Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2023] QSC 57 which provides guidance as to how the relation-back day for a company is to be determined in circumstances where there are multiple winding up applications.

Key takeaways

The judgment of the Court of Appeal (Newey, Males and Snowden LLJ) in Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417 demonstrates the importance of the adequacy of any undertaking in damages given in support of an application for a freezing order and underlines the need for full and frank disclosure.

While the inclusion of interest amounts in ‘financial debt’, for the purposes of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), is clearly provided for in the IBC, the interest component in the case of operational debt has always been a point of contention.

Purchasers often relish the prospect of buying distressed assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. Under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a buyer may obtain ownership of bankruptcy estate assets “free and clear of any interest” (assuming certain conditions are met), and also be reasonably confident that the sale will not be reversed on appeal. But the U.S. Supreme Court may have now tempered that confidence. In its recent, unanimous opinion, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, No. 21-1270 (Apr.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its latest bankruptcy opinion in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, holding that the Bankruptcy Code’s rule against invalidating 363 sales after appeal is not an iron-clad jurisdictional bar, but rather a mere statutory limitation.[1]

In Short

The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which limits a party's ability to undo an asset transfer made to a good-faith purchaser in a bankruptcy case, is jurisdictional.

In a recent decision, the Second Circuit held that only parties with the right to pursue a breach of contract claim under an executory contract or unexpired lease have the right to demand a cure payment in the event the executory contract or lease is assumed by a debtor in bankruptcy, affirming previous decisions by the bankruptcy and district courts, and limiting the scope of Bankruptcy Code § 365(b)(1)(A).