The adage ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’ rings true for the 831 company directors disqualified in 2023/24 for abusing the Covid financial support scheme.

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.

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.

Greatest focus will be on retail and outsourcing sectors.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has been conducting a review of the operation of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), seeking views as to how to reduce the number and value of claims falling to the FSCS and assessing how the scheme is funded, including the impact of professional indemnity insurance (PII).

High Court holds that an Insolvency Exclusion applies in respect of a claim under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (“1930 Act”) and awards summary judgment accordingly but declines to provide much-needed guidance on insurers’ liability in the case of claims partially settled by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (“FSCS”).

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