Administrators of Arena Television are reportedly investigating an alleged fraud involving millions of pandemic loans, where government-backed loans were offered to businesses to help them deal with the pandemic, and are suing two of the directors for breach of fiduciary duty. More companies may be in a similar position as, according to the National Audit Office, it is likely that the level of fraud in the bounce back loan scheme ranges from £3.5bn to £4.9bn. Who can claim these ill-gotten gains?

Directors’ duties

In Nuoxi Capital Ltd v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817, Mr Justice Harris held that keepwell disputes should be determined in Hong Kong in accordance with the contractual exclusive jurisdiction clause, notwithstanding the Court recognising the keepwell provider’s Mainland insolvency proceedings.

These case summaries first appeared in LexisNexis’ Insolvency Case Alerter. They represent some of the more interesting insolvency decisions to have been published recently.

This summary covers:

We are (or were!) emerging from nearly two years of restrictions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic which forced people to stay at home and businesses to close causing shock waves throughout the economy. The government put in place the package of emergency measures and support which we are now all too familiar with. However, the question always lingered, what next? What about when the money runs out?

On December 16, 2021, United States District Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York overturned the confirmation of Purdue Pharma’s chapter 11 plan of reorganization, “put[ting] to rest” the non-consensual third-party releases debate that has “hovered over bankruptcy law for thirty five years.” Judge McMahon concluded in her 142-page opinion that “the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize such non-consensual

Summary

On 16 December 2021, judgment was handed down in Federal Court of Australia proceedings QUD 31 of 2021, which found that set off provisions under the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) (Act) cannot be relied on to reduce an unfair preference claim under section 588FA of the Act.

The judgment will likely see practical consequences in the increased capacity of liquidators to acquire voidable transactions under the statutory priority regime.

In a win for liquidators, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia this week found that a creditor cannot rely on set-off under the Corporations Act 2001 to reduce an unfair preference claim under section 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act).

In an opinion yesterday, Judge McMahon vacated the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement because she found that the bankruptcy court lacked authority to issue releases in favor of the Sackler family.

A new Act, which received Royal Assent on 15 December 2021, extends the existing directors’ disqualification regime to the directors of dissolved companies.

In John Doyle Construction v Erith Contractors, the Court of Appeal has further considered the interrelation of insolvency and adjudication, providing guidance on the circumstances in which an adjudication award might be enforceable by a company in liquidation.

The key takeaways

Jurisdiction