Introduction
A trustee-manager, in the context of a business trust, actively runs the trust's operations while safeguarding the interests of investors. In the course of acting as a trustee-manager, the entity may incur liabilities in relation to activities of the business trust. How are these liabilities treated in a restructuring and insolvency? And can a trustee-manager propose a scheme of arrangement for debts incurred in its capacity as trustee-manager?
Did you know that bankruptcy trustees are now liable for capital gains tax (CGT) on the sale of real property? Section 254 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) imposes specific obligations on trustees and agents, covering income, profits, and gains of a capital nature in their representative capacity. This has recently taken on new importance for bankruptcy trustees.
What has changed?
A recent judgment in Kevin Hellard & Ors v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank (in liquidation) & Ors [2024] EWHC 1783 (Ch) the High Court considers the ‘ownership and control’ test in Bankruptcy, involving trustee powers and Russian Bank creditors.
The concept of an ‘insolvent trust’ is somewhat of a paradox. A trust is not a separate legal entity in the way that companies are and, as such, cannot be insolvent in the technical sense. Trustees legally own assets in a trust for the benefit of beneficiaries.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), an individual debtor may be denied a discharge, in its entirely, for making a transfer “with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” a creditor or the trustee.
On April 17, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Michigan ruled:
Acquiring an insolvent corporation’s operations during a legal proceeding (rehabilitation, recovery, or debt settlement) presents numerous business opportunities. However, the holding of an insolvency auction, an integral part of the sale, may threaten these opportunities. During a sale, the insolvent corporation’s trustee (or the administrators) needs to maximize proceeds from the auction to pay creditors. Therefore, the trustee must consider offers from additional bidders before accepting a proposal.
Today, in Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, the Supreme Court held that debtors who paid fees in bankruptcy cases administered by the U.S. Trustee Program are not entitled to any relief, even though the Court previously ruled that those debtors had been unconstitutionally overcharged. This decision is the culmination of several years of litigation concerning differential fee structures across judicial districts.
In one of the most important trust decisions of recent years, which was handed down on Thursday 13 October 2022, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the JCPC) held that the rights of indemnity of successive trustees against the assets of an insolvent trust fund (ie a trust fund that is unable to meet those liabilities) rank pari passu and not on a first in time basis.
Jersey law ruling will have far reaching ramifications for trust administration in common law jurisdictions
In In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 12 F.4th 171 (2d Cir. 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived litigation filed by the trustee administering the assets of defunct investment firm Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC ("MIS") seeking to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in allegedly fraudulent transfers made to former MIS customers and certain other defendants as part of the Madoff Ponzi scheme.