On 21 May 2010, Justice Floyd handed down his judgment in Bloomsbury International Ltd (in administration) v Mark Alan Holyoake.1 The case sheds light on the circumstances in which it is appropriate for a cross-undertaking provided by administrators on behalf of an insolvent company to be fortifi ed by a bank guarantee.
Facts
This article was originally published by ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE.
Introduction
There was a distinct air of positivity and delight to be out and about networking again at the FIRE Starters Global Summit in Dublin. Once again the event was well attended by a wonderful and dynamic group of international professionals from across the advisory spectrum in asset recovery, fraud and insolvency and many new networks were forged over the fun three-day event.
This article first appeared in Business Brief magazine, May 2021 edition.
Across the world, government support has kept insolvency rates down but as jurisdictions look to loosen restrictions and ease back into some kind of normality, governments can't foot the bill forever.
As financial support is withdrawn, restructuring, insolvency and corporate recovery practitioners will likely see a spike in activity, and offshore firms in the Channel Islands are braced for an increase in demand from clients.
Over the last two years, much of the healthcare world has been watching the government’s prosecution of Insys Therapeutics for its sales and marketing practices related to its Subsys spray. Subsys is powerful and highly addictive fentanyl spray (administered under the tongue) that was approved by the FDA in 2012 for the treatment of persistent breakthrough pain in adult cancer patients who were already receiving, and tolerant to, regular opioid therapy.
In a significant expansion of the potential risk for distressed claims traders, the Delaware bankruptcy court has recently ruled1 that traders who engage in insider trading may have their claims subordinated to equity, and that traders who amass claims sufficient to block a plan of reorganization owe fiduciary duties to all other creditors and shareholders during plan negotiations.
Leading the Past Week
In a client advisory sent by our office a few months ago, we described a decision in the Madoff saga in which the District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court) closed off a potential avenue of significant recovery for the Madoff Trustee (the Trustee) and the Ponzi scheme victims by denying the Trustee standing to pursue certain claims against feeder funds – firms that sent investors’ funds to Madof
Applying Georgia law, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia has voided a surplus lines policy on the grounds that the insured, a purported hedge fund management firm, concealed that it was operating a Ponzi scheme, submitted an inaccurate financial statement, and misrepresented that its investment funds were “stable.”Perkins v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 2012 WL 2105908 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Apr. 3, 2012).
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that a dishonesty exclusion barred coverage under primary and excess directors and officers (D&O) policies for the Wrongful Acts of the principals of a bankrupt company, all of whom were criminally convicted of securities fraud and related crimes. The Unencumbered Assets Trust v. Great American Insurance Co., et. al., 2011 WL 4348128 (S.D. Ohio Sept.
Wiley Rein LLP partner H. Jason Gold, the chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee in the mortgage fraud and Ponzi scheme case of Vijay Taneja, announced today that he has reached settlements with 11 defendants in the 60 lawsuits he filed last year seeking to recover tens of millions of dollars for the benefit of Mr. Taneja's creditors.