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.

Boris Becker was originally made bankrupt in June 2017. In the ordinary course, a debtor is made bankrupt for a period of one year, and upon the anniversary of the bankruptcy order they are automatically discharged. While a bankrupt is undischarged, they are subject to various restrictions e.g. they are unable to act as company director or be involved in the management, promotion or formation of a business. Once discharged, the debtor can (in theory) start to rebuild their life afresh while their pre-bankruptcy assets remain in the hands of their trustee in bankruptcy (the Trustee).

In the recent case of Loveridge v Povey and Ors [2024] EWHC 329 (Ch) a company shareholder sought to challenge the administrators’ decision to rescue a balance sheet solvent company as a going concern by securing additional funding, as opposed to pursuing a sale of the business.

Background

Thames Water is making waves once again with renewed discussion around a potential special administration for the beleaguered water company. We wrote last year about reports that the government and Ofwat were making contingency plans for Thames Water after its failure to raise shareholder funding to bridge a funding gap with nearly £1.4bn of its borrowings due to mature this year.

We find ourselves in a year of transition, with (whisper it) the economy stabilising and an election tipped for the second half of 2024. Surely only a fool, in times such as these, would seek to anticipate what change could unfold in the legal landscape over the next 12 months. Challenge accepted! For 2024 we have dusted off our crystal ball and we set out below our (educated) guesses of what to expect for the year (or two) ahead…

Implementation of UNCITRAL model law on Enterprise Group Insolvency

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

The court has the power to challenge any decision of the officeholder in an insolvency process on application by a dissatisfied party. The ambit of that power depends upon the nature of the insolvency process but, broadly, the following categories of people will be entitled to apply:

As can often be the way, August was a disappointing month for many, with the dull and dreary weather casting a shadow over plans made for the school holidays. So too, it seems, was August a bad month for the business community – perhaps in some cases linked to the weather, with poorer performance by seasonal businesses reliant on fair weather custom.

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