The Insolvency Service (IS), acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, commenced disqualification proceedings against five former non-executive directors (NEDs) of Carillion plc in January 2021, following the compulsory liquidation of the Carillion Group in January 2018. Last month on the eve of trial, the IS discontinued its disqualification proceedings against the NEDs.

Amendments to the director disqualification regime, enacted in 2015, enable the Insolvency Service (on the request of a creditor of an insolvent company) to seek a compensatory remedy against a disqualified director for the benefit of the creditor(s). This empowers a creditor to take action where an insolvency officer may be unable, or unwilling, to do so.

This case relates to the principle that creditors with the benefit of a third-party debt order, are ostensibly in a better position than other unsecured creditors of an insolvent estate.

Darty Holdings SAS v Carton-Kelly(as additional liquidator of CGL Realisations Limited) [2023] EWCA Civ 1135

Overview

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (New Delhi Bench) (“NCLAT”) in two recent judgments passed in Raiyan Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Unrivalled Projects Pvt. Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1071 of 2023] and Aryan Mining & Trading Corpn Pvt. Ltd. vs Kail limited and Anr. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.

On 26 September 2023, our Insolvency and Asset Recovery team hosted a seminar explaining the emerging and developing types of disputes focussed on insolvent estate recoveries.

In a judgment that will be welcomed by insolvency professionals, the Supreme Court has today confirmed that administrators cannot be personally criminally liable for failing to notify the Secretary of State about plans for collective redundancies. This judgment follows an appeal by Robert Palmer against a finding that he was criminally liable for his failure to submit form HR1 in his capacity as the joint administrator of West Coast Capital (USC) Limited (USC).

What is the obligation?

As a director of a company, the regulatory landscape in England and Wales can feel like a scary place. The possible ways a director can become exposed can feel endless – especially if one asks Google.

Just ask any corporate lawyer fortunate enough to own the tome that is the Companies Act 2006. In the absence of becoming a legal expert, what can directors practically do to best protect themselves when carrying out their role?

After years of litigation involving state, federal, Irish, and (to a lesser extent) Swiss law; transfers of numerous assets, including Ireland’s priciest-personal residence; a jury trial; and extensive post-trial briefing, the Second Circuit made short shrift of a former real estate mogul and his ex-wife’s appeal of a judgment rendered against them for fraudulent conveyances.

第１ 事案の概要

X（原告）は、協同組合であるY（被告）の組合員であったとこ ろ、令和2年1月に民事再生手続開始の決定を受け（以下「本 件再生手続」といいます。）、同年9月にYを脱退する旨の意思 表示をしました。

本件は、Xが、Yに対し、XのYに対する出資金501万円に係る 返戻請求権（以下「本件出資金返戻請求権」といいます。） は、脱退の効力が発生する令和3年3月末の事業年度の終了 日において組合財産が存在することが同年6月のYの総代会 において確認されたことにより停止条件が成就した旨を主張 して、本件出資金返戻請求権に基づき、出資金501万円及び これに対する遅延損害金の支払を求めた事案です。

再生債権者であるYが本件出資金返戻請求権の停止条件 不成就の利益を放棄して行った、再生債権（YのXに対する貸 付金残元金の債権1，008万4，057円及びこれに対する遅延 損害金）を自働債権とし、本件出資金返戻請求権を受働債権 とする相殺（以下「本件相殺」といいます。）が、民事再生法92 条1項によって許容されるか否か等が争われました。

第２ 本件の争点と判断概要

１ 争点