As well as serving as a useful reminder of the law surrounding wrongful trading and the operation of section 214 Insolvency Act 1986, this recent High Court decision clarified where the burden of proof lies in defending a wrongful trading case.

Background

On 31 December 2014, the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2014 (Commencement No 7) Order 2014, SI 2014/3160 extended the list of unsecured debts afforded preferential status in insolvency proceedings. Following this recent change, it is worth reminding ourselves how assets are distributed in a corporate insolvency.

General Principles

Background

This was an appeal by Dr Mohammed Abdulla (the “Appellant”), the husband of Mrs Sarah Amin (the “Bankrupt”), against the decision at first instance in favour of (1) Mr Andrew John Whelan (2) Mr Walter Terence Weir (3) Mr David Ansell and (4) the Bankrupt (together the “Respondents”). The pertinent facts are:

• Mr Whelan was the trustee in bankruptcy for Mrs Amin (the “Trustee”).

The Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (the “2016 Rules”) were published on 18 October 2016 and laid before Parliament on 25 October 2016. The 2016 Rules are due to come into force with effect from 6 April 2017. The 2016 Rules are the product of an extensive programme of consultation with a range of parties, including the insolvency profession, creditor representatives, insolvency regulators and public bodies. The aim was to streamline the process and reduce regulation with the ultimate goal of increasing returns to creditors.

The Claim

Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (“AWA Limited”) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (the “Defendant”). BAT Industries Plc (“BAT Plc”), through a series of corporate acquisitions, became liable to pay for part of an environmental clean-up operation in the USA. AWA Limited was also liable to indemnify BAT Plc for part of that liability.

In December 2008, AWA Limited’s directors signed a solvency statement confirming that, in the opinion of the directors;