Four directors have been disqualified for abusing the dissolution process pursuant to powers introduced by the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 (the Act). In each case, the director secured a bounce back loan on behalf of their company before taking steps to dissolve the company in an attempt to avoid repaying liabilities under the scheme.

The government’s monthly insolvency statistics for June 2022 paint a picture of an economy that is still struggling to return to pre-pandemic profitability. Company insolvencies were 40% higher than for the same period last year and 15% higher than in June 2019 (i.e. pre-pandemic levels), with the increased level of insolvencies being largely driven by the higher number of creditors’ voluntary liquidations.

What effect will government proposals have on insurers, policyholders and other stakeholders?

The deadline for obtaining an order to suspend discharge from bankruptcy is absolute, as confirmed in the recent case of Paul Allen (as Trustee in Bankruptcy) v Pramod Mittal (in bankruptcy) [2022] EWHC 762 (Ch).

Background

The deadline for obtaining an order to suspend discharge from bankruptcy is absolute, as confirmed in the recent case of Paul Allen (as Trustee in Bankruptcy) v Pramod Mittal (in bankruptcy) [2022] EWHC 762 (Ch).

Background

The Court of Appeal has held that the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders (who nonetheless enjoy priority status in respect of their creditor claims), providing some much-needed clarity on this issue for e-money institutions and their clients.

A link to the judgment can be found here.

Background

The High Court has provided useful guidance on the interplay between the JCT regime for payment and claims in insolvency proceedings, in the recent case of Levi Solicitors LLP v Wilson and another [2022] EWHC 24 (Ch).

The application

In Re AFM (1932) Ltd (in liquidation) [2021] EWHC 3460 (Ch) the court confirmed that where an applicant is already contractually entitled – as against another party - to be reimbursed, together with interest, by that other party in an amount equivalent to the value transferred by that applicant under a related transaction, there cannot be a transaction at an undervalue pursuant to section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Facts

In what is believed to be the first reported decision on this issue, the High Court has allowed an appeal under section 205(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) against a decision of the Secretary of State to defer the dissolution of a company in liquidation.

A link to the judgement can be found here.

The facts

In FCA v Carillion [2021] EWCH 2871 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) enforcement action against Carillion Plc (in Liquidation) (Carillion) pursuant to certain provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) does not constitute an “action or proceeding” and therefore falls outside of the scope of the statutory stay imposed by section 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).

Section 130(2) of the Act