The presumption that courts normally validate dispositions by a company subject to a winding up petition if such dispositions are made in good faith and in the ordinary course of business has been called into question in the recent case of Express Electrical Distributors Ltd v Beavis and others [2016].

A new fee structure in respect of insolvency fees payable to the Insolvency Service came into force on 21 July 2016, pursuant to The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2016 (SI 2016/692) (the “Order”), which revokes The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2004 (SI 2004/593) and all ten subsequent amendment orders.

The senior board members (other than Sir Philip Green) are next to face the committees comprising Lord Grabiner, non-executive chairman of Traveta Investments Limited and Traveta Investments (No 2) Limited; Ian Grabiner, CEO of Arcadia; Paul Budge, FD of Arcadia and former BHS board member; Gillian Hague, group financial controller of Arcadia; and Chris Harris, group property director for Arcadia. This group of individuals (other than Lord Grabiner and Ian Grabiner) together with Sir Philip Green comprised the Traveta board’s sub-group responsible for negotiating the sale of BHS.

Last week the UK Government issued a consultation document on changing UK insolvency legislation to enable distressed companies to obtain a moratorium for up to three months, with the possibility of an extension, under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner. The moratorium would prevent all creditors, including secured creditors, from taking any enforcement action against such companies without first applying to court for permission to do so. This follows a briefing paper published by R3 last month suggesting a similar moratorium process.

The adviser group 2 session on Monday 23 May comprised Owen Clay, corporate lawyer for Arcadia and Traveta (Linklaters); Steve Denison, auditor of Traveta and its subsidiaries, including BHS (PwC); and Anthony Gutman, ‘informal’ adviser to the Arcadia Group (Goldman Sachs).

The questioning focused on the solvency position of BHS at the time of the acquisition, the level of due diligence undertaken on the eventual acquirer (Retail Acquisitions Ltd) and the recognition of the pensions deficit in the deal negotiation.

Monday 23 May saw the turn of the advisers. This update concentrates on what we will call “adviser group 1” comprising Emma King, the trustees pension lawyer (Eversheds); David Clarke, covenants adviser to the trustees (KPMG); Tony Clare, restructuring pensions adviser to Taveta Investments Limited, the previous owner of BHS (Deloitte); Ian Greenstreet, pension lawyer to Taveta Investments Limited (Nabarro); and Richard Cousins, the independent actuary to the Taveta group (PWC).

Directors of a company are subject to certain duties under the Companies Act 2006. These duties are of obvious importance throughout their service as a director but some of them become particularly important during the period leading up to the insolvency of the company.

Help is at hand for insolvency practitioners (IPs) who need clarification on the Regulator’s views on scheme trustee appointments and statutory notices. The Pensions Regulator recently released a statement intended to assist IPs to understand these two areas which are of particular relevance to them.

TRUSTEES

The statement deals with scheme trustee appointments in four areas:

On 14 September 2015, judgment was handed down in the case of Re SSRL Realisations Limited (In Administration), in which a landlord was granted permission to forfeit a lease by peaceable re-entry. The case will be of interest to insolvency practitioners and landlords alike – but for very different reasons.

At a time when insolvency practitioner’s (“IPs”) fees are being scrutinised more closely than ever, the case of Bell v Birchall and others [2015] is a timely reminder to IPs to consider the necessity of the work they propose to undertake, particularly in respect of assets that do not form part of the insolvent estate. In this case, the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to make a “Berkeley Applegate” order.