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

The High Court has recently considered whether to exercise its jurisdiction to hear winding-up petitions brought against two companies incorporated in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

The Facts

The High Court has considered whether a former liquidator should be held liable under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”) for misapplying company monies in excess of half a million pounds.

The Facts

Facts 

Mr Kuldip Singh Birdi was made bankrupt in March 2012, on the Petition of HMRC. Three Applicants (the “Applicants”) to these proceedings had all submitted proofs of debt as creditors in Mr Birdi’s bankruptcy. Together, their claims total £189,983.

The First Respondent in these proceedings, Mr Price, was appointed as Mr Birdi’s Trustee in Bankruptcy at a meeting of creditors held in July 2012. In January 2014, Mr Price retired from practice and was removed as Trustee and the Second Respondent, Mr Pettit was appointed in his place.

The Facts

The application relates to the estate of Jillian Mascall (the “Deceased”), which owned around 27 properties. The Deceased died on 4 December 2014 and it later became apparent the estate was insolvent.

Background

The claimant, Close Brothers Ltd (“Close”), a London based bank, sought to enforce its right to sell the defendant’s, AIS (Marine) 2 Limited (“AIS”) secured property following AIS’s default on repayment of a loan. The asset in question was a vessel and AIS mortgaged shares in the vessel to Close in order to secure a loan of €2,247,000 (the “Loan”). The purpose of the Loan was to assist AIS in purchasing the vessel, which cost €3,210,000.

Agreement

The Consultation

In March 2018, the Government published a consultation on its proposed reforms to the UK’s insolvency and corporate governance landscape. It sought views on ways to reduce the risk of company failures occurring through poor governance, whilst improving the insolvency framework to create a stronger business environment. The Government has now published its response to the consultation and we consider the key changes below.

Parent Company Director Accountability

Introduction

Background to the Case

Background to the Case In this case, the High Court scrutinised the conduct of the administrators appointed by a secured lender, Dunbar Assets plc, over a company, Angel House Developments Limited, whose sole asset was an office block in the London Docklands. The sole shareholder of the company had accused the administrators of breaching a number of duties.