On 13 September 2018, the UK Government published a guidance notice (Guidance) on handling civil disputes, including cross-border insolvencies, in the event that the UK exits the EU without having first agreed a framework for ongoing civil judicial cooperation, and from which time and date (11 pm on 29 March 2019) the UK will not benefit from the EU rules to replace the current arrangements.

On 26 August, the Government announced that it will be making changes to UK insolvency legislation. The changes are intended to support distressed companies and address issues highlighted by major company failures and include:

The Ministry of Justice is seeking feedback from key stakeholders on the impact of Part 2 of the LAPSO reforms, which abolished the recoverability of success fees under CFAs and after the event insurance premiums.

Until April 2015 insolvency claims were exempt, enabling insolvency practitioners to pursue claims and if successful recover any success fee and more importantly after the event insurance premiums. There was concern at the time, that by abolishing the ability to recover the premium that insolvency claims would be stifled.

The Department for Work and Pensions has issued a consultation paper which seeks to strengthen the powers of TPR in connection with defined benefit pension plans, coming in response to recent corporate failures which had pension plans with significant deficits.

The proposals introduce four new “notifiable events” in addition to those that already exist, the introduction of hefty (potentially unlimited) fines, through the introduction of new civil and criminal penalties and widening the net of those potentially liable for an offence, to include directors.

The revised Insolvency Practice Direction has been published and approved with effect from 4 July. This replaces the PD published in April this year. The revisions (primarily dealing with the distribution of specialised insolvency work) widen the scope of work which can be undertaken in local courts, whilst also giving the ability to transfer insolvency cases back to the local hearing centres if there is sufficient expertise to deal with the matter.

The Insolvency Service intends to publish a new guidance notice to address the issues faced by employers in dealing with collective consultation when a company is facing insolvency, following consultation with the industry last year.

The guidance note is expected to require insolvency practitioners to notify the government in advance of collective redundancy proposals and to comply with the requirement to consult when seeking to rescue or wind up a business.

It is no great surprise that following the collapse of Carillion and with other retail businesses teetering on the edge, insolvency and corporate recovery is back in the news.

Some of the biggest casualties of entities like Carillion are the employees. Luckily, in the Carillion failure many jobs have been saved, but there is still a residual cost to employees who have to submit claims to the National Insurance Fund and the liquidator to recover payments for unpaid wages, holiday and sick pay.

Directors of a company in financial distress will often turn to their professional advisors to assist in making decisions about the company’s future; whether that be their lawyers, accountants, bank, tax advisors or insolvency professionals.

The High Court has considered a recent Court of Appeal ruling on whether trustees in bankruptcy should be able to deploy privileged documents in the discharge of their duties.

The existing position under Avonwick

The facts of Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 1138 involved a company called Webinvest. Webinvest was beneficially owned by Mr Shlosberg. Avonwick lent US$100 million to Webinvest, with Mr Shlosberg personally guaranteeing the loan.

The English Supreme Court has considered various new categories of creditor claims against a company with unlimited liability in administration where, unusually, there was enough money to pay all creditors and a surplus existed.

In proceedings commonly referred to as the Waterfall I litigation, the Supreme Court considered issues relating to the distribution of funds from the estate of Lehman Brothers International Europe (in administration) (LBIE), in circumstances where there was a surplus of assets amounting to approximately £8 billion.