Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

Over recent months we have seen numerous references in the press to investigations into Bounce Back Loan Scheme (BBLS) fraud. A year ago the National Audit Office estimated that around 11% of the loans granted (some £4.9bn) were procured fraudulently. More recent official estimates suggest the figure is between £3.3bn and £5bn.

Needless to say attempting to recover these funds is a enormous task. The National Crime Agency is investigating some of the biggest cases, but equally banks and HMRC are actively seeking to identify fraud and recover the loans.

Throughout the pandemic, a steady stream of government support was made available to prop-up businesses. As we move towards a New Normal, those support packages are being scaled-back. Many businesses are still recovering from the shock of the last 18 months and, with high levels of historic debt as an additional burden, are not yet back to full financial health.

The High Court in London gave judgment on Friday, 3 July 2020 on the relative ranking of over $10 billion of subordinated liabilities in the administrations of two entities in the Lehman Brothers group.

The recent decisions in Re MF Global UK Ltd and Re Omni Trustees Ltd give conflicting views as to whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect. In this article, we look at the reasoning in the two judgments and discuss a possible further argument for extra-territorial effect.

The conflicting rulings on section 236