The High Court has found the former directors of collapsed retail chain BHS liable for wrongful trading, misfeasant trading and individual acts of misfeasance.

Although overall quantum is yet to be decided, this has been widely reported as the largest wrongful trading award the courts have made since the introduction of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Insolvency officeholders seeking to realise claims or other rights of action will take comfort from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Edengate [2022] EWCA Civ 626.

The Court held that failure by a liquidator to give a defendant the opportunity to buy or settle a claim against it before selling the claim to a third party is not necessarily perverse. However, it may often be sensible or good practice to do so.

The FCA has published finalised guidance for insolvency practitioners (IPs) appointed (or looking to be appointed) over regulated firms.

This sets out the FCA’s expectations as to how IPs can ensure firms continue to meet their regulatory obligations both before an appointment and during the course of an insolvency process. It confirms the FCA’s view of what would constitute good practice, as well as linking in to some of the existing statutory obligations on regulated firms and/or IPs.

The National Security and Investment Act 2021 creates a new screening regime for transactions which might raise national security concerns in the UK. It passed into law on 29 April 2021 and is expected to come into effect by autumn 2021.

However, as the Act has retrospective effect from November 2020, insolvency practitioners need to understand the implications for insolvency sales taking place now. We have summarised the headline issues for insolvency practitioners below.

You need to consider the impact of this Act on transactions that are taking place now.

Voluntary measures to scrutinise pre-pack sales to connected parties have not been enough to alleviate creditor concerns, says the Government. A new regulatory framework governing connected party sales in administration will be put in place before the end of June 2021. Draft regulations were published on 8 October 2020.

The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.

A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.

The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.

Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.

The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.

Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.

A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.

The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following: