In a recent decision, the High Court refused to grant the Financial Times access to the whole of the Secretary of State's affirmation in support of directors' disqualification proceedings against Alexander Greensill, pursuant to either CPR 5.4C or the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The High Court has ordered two former directors of British Home Stores ("BHS") to pay equitable compensation of £110 million in respect of misfeasance claims brought by the former retailer's joint liquidators: Wright v Chappell [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch).

The collapse of UK retailer British Home Stores ("BHS") in 2016 remains one of the most high-profile corporate insolvencies of recent times. It went from being a household name across the UK, with over 11,000 employees, to having reported debts of £1.3 billion, including a pension deficit of nearly £600 million. The group's demise saw the closure of some 164 stores nationwide and significant job losses.

In the recent case of Re LYHFL Limited [2023] EWHC 2585 (Ch), the High Court has considered the proper interpretation of paragraph 12(1)(b), Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, by which directors can apply to court for an order putting the company into administration.

Drawing on previous authorities concerning this and similar provisions, the Court concluded that an individual director has no power to make such an application without the approval of the majority of the company's directors and a valid board resolution.

Facts

On the eve of trial, the Insolvency Service (IS), acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, has discontinued disqualification proceedings brought in January 2021 against five former non-executive directors (NEDs) of Carillion plc. The trial, which had been listed for around 13 weeks (and originally as long as 6 months) had been due to start on Monday 16 October 2023.

The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.

In a recent case, the High Court has had one of its first opportunities to consider BTI v Sequana [2022] UKSC 25 (see our previous update here), in which the Supreme Court gave important guidance on the existence and scope of the duty of company directors to have regard to the interests of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”, which arises in an insolvency scenario).

The judgement raises important questions for directors faced with substantial liabilities

Although not directly concerned with directors' liabilities, the recent Supreme Court judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd v HSBC Bank PLC provides further clarity on the circumstances in which a distressed or insolvent company may seek to make claims against its directors.

INTRODUCTION

The key aspects affecting directors' liabilities presented in the Supreme Court ruling are that:

To promote the finality and binding effect of confirmed chapter 11 plans, the Bankruptcy Code categorically prohibits any modification of a confirmed plan after it has been "substantially consummated." Stakeholders, however, sometimes attempt to skirt this prohibition by characterizing proposed changes to a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan as some other form of relief, such as modification of the confirmation order or a plan document, or reconsideration of the allowed amount of a claim. The U.S.