In January this year, construction giant Carillion entered into liquidation. In a sense its demise was sudden – the firm entered straight into liquidation rather than the more familiar administration procedure, meaning it had no meaningful assets that gave any prospect of the business, or any part of it, continuing as a going concern. But in another sense it was expected: a large failure of this type had been expected by industry watchers for some time.

There is no such thing when you look at the demise of some of Britain’s biggest household names on the high street which have included BHS, Woolworths and Jessops. The latest to join the critical list are electronics retailers Maplin and Toys R Us.

Electronics chain Maplin collapsed into insolvency on last month, making it the second retailer to succumb to a brutal winter for Britain’s consumer economy in the space of just over an hour. Graham Harris, who became chief executive only last month, said:

The Supreme Court has recently held that directors who have caused company property to be transferred to another company under their control may be liable to restore the proceeds even after expiry of the six-year limitation period.

Mr and Mrs Fielding were directors and majority shareholders of Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd ("BHUK"), a holding company with trading subsidiaries including Vital Energi Utilities Ltd ("Vital Energi").

Following on from a number of recent high profile corporate failures, the Government has issued a consultation focused on specific issues concerning companies which are insolvent or approaching insolvency.

Below is a summary of the areas under consultation. The full consultation can be found here.

The UK’s corporate governance regime has been stress-tested in the past decade and in many respects it has done well. However, in response to certain high profile corporate collapses which have caused heavy losses for creditors, in particular individuals and suppliers with little opportunity to protect themselves against losses, and in the spirit of continual improvement, the government has recently launched its “Insolvency and Corporate Governance Consultation”.

The consultation indicates that the government is considering changes in the law to address:

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has published a consultation on insolvency and corporate governance.

The consultation is aimed primarily at improving corporate governance in firms that are in or approaching insolvency. However, it also puts forward proposals for improving the wider framework of corporate governance.

The key proposals from the consultation are set out below.

Article Summary:

In Wright (and another) (as joint liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd (formerly BHS Ltd) (in liquidation)) v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd, the court held that, when the BHS CVA terminated, the landlord was entitled to claim the full rent due under its lease. With more recent retail CVAs seeking to push the envelope even further, is the continued compromise of landlord creditors post-CVA the next issue to be tested in the courts?

 March 2018 The Government has issued a Consultation on proposals designed to reduce the risk of major company failures and to strengthen the responsibilities of directors in the context of actual or threatened insolvency. The principal specific proposals are: • directors of a holding company that sells an insolvent subsidiary to be required to take into account the interests of the creditors of that subsidiary and possibly its other stakeholders • the unwinding of transactions that have “unfairly removed value” from a company that becomes insolvent.

The Facts

This case is the latest twist in the ongoing saga of failed fintech "unicorn" Ve Interactive ("Ve"), who entered Administration in April 2017. Certain of Ve's creditors made an application to replace its Administrators, from Smith & Williamson LLP, with new Administrators from Deloitte.

In Ziggurat (Claremont Place) LLP v HCC International Insurance Company plc [2017] EWHC 3286 (TCC) the court considered a claim under an amended ABI Model Form Guarantee Bond.

As a result of a bespoke clause the Contractor's insolvency was enough to trigger recovery under the Bond, but if a breach of contract was required, the Contractor was in breach of the contract by failing to pay the amount due to the Employer following insolvency.