When a majority of a company’s board approves a tender offer in good faith, can it still be avoided as an actually fraudulent transfer? Yes, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, holding that the fraudulent intent of a corporation’s CEO who was a board member and exercised control over the board can be imputed to the corporation, even if he was the sole actor with fraudulent intent.
Background
1. Introduction
The recently reported decision of ICC Judge Greenwood in Grove Independent School Ltd, Re [2023] EWHC 2546 (Ch) (Grove) provides some clarity on the test to be applied by the court in deciding whether to exercise discretion to grant an order for a Part A1 moratorium. In this case, the company in question was also faced with a winding-up petition, presented by His Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
The Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023 (“Bill”) has been agreed to by both the House of Representative and the Senate and will now be presented to the Governor-General.
The Bill seeks to amend the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”) to provide legal certainty on the calculation of bankruptcy discharge dates, aligning the Act with current practices, by confirming that the discharge date is determined from when the Statement of Affairs is accepted, rather than when it was initially presented.
Why the change?
Judgments on claims for fraudulent trading (s 213 Insolvency Act 1986) do not come along every day: they are hard to make good. A recent example is, however, that of Charles Morrison (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) in Bouchier & Anor v Booth & Anor [2023] EWHC 3195 (Ch). It runs to 281 paragraphs and covers a wide range of law and fact.
Amid the current market uncertainties, distressed asset sales are likely to rise. International investors are looking for efficient solutions, preferably ones that reflect solutions in their home jurisdictions. One popular mechanism is the use of pre-pack sales. A pre-pack sale manages the adverse impact of insolvency proceedings on the distressed company’s business, while reducing the time and cost of such proceedings, and offering greater asset realisation to be distributed among creditors.
In R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court [2023] UKSC 38, the Supreme Court has ruled that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 is not an "officer" of the company.
This case considered this issue within the meaning of section 194 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the TULRCA). As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, administrators will not be exposed to potential criminal liability for failing to notify the Secretary of State of collective redundancies.
If you have ever filed a claim in a bankruptcy case, you have also probably received an offer from a third-party claims purchaser to purchase your claim. Before deciding to sell the claim, there are pros and cons that must be carefully considered.
Key Issues
There are several advantages to selling your claim:
One of the primary goals of bankruptcy law is to provide debtors with a fresh start by imposing an automatic stay and allowing for claims of reorganizing debtors to be discharged. In environmental law, a primary goal is to ensure that the “polluter pays” for environmental harms. These two goals collide when an entity with environmental liabilities enters bankruptcy. The result is often outcomes that are the exception, rather than the rule, with many unsettled areas of law that can be dealt with by bankruptcy courts in varying ways.