For those that are that way inclined (which includes us at #SPBRestructuring!), the 500 plus page Wright v Chappell judgment which sets out the BHS wrongful trading claim against its former directors makes for an interesting read. It paints a colourful picture of the downfall of the BHS group, from the point that it was sold for £1 to its eventual demise into administration and then liquidation. You can make your own mind up about the characters involved, but the story is a sorry one, with creditors ultimately suffering the most.

While there is a statutory requirement to register most forms of security granted by limited companies incorporated in the UK at Companies House, it is worth remembering that there is no statutory requirement for the holder of registered security to inform Companies House if, e.g., the debt secured by a registered charge has been satisfied.

Following our previous alert, in which we highlighted an issue with entries relating to registered security maintained at Companies House being incorrectly updated to indicate that they had in fact been discharged without the aware

Over the past week, reports have emerged about filings that have been made at Companies House marking a charge as satisfied, without the company's or relevant lender's knowledge.

There were rumours last week, which were simply that, because Companies House had not publicly announced any issue, but, as we have seen over the weekend and is now widely reported in the news, it appears that there have been at least 800 erroneous filings.

On 23 January 2024, the Court of Appeal handed down its much anticipated judgment[1] on the appeal of the Adler restructuring plan pursuant to Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (“RP”), which was sanctioned by the High Court on 12 April 2023

In Lehman Brothers (PTG) Ltd (In Administration), the court considered whether to grant an order extending the administration of Lehman Brothers (PTG) Ltd (the “Company”) for a further two years and in doing so, provided some useful observations about when a court will grant an extension where a company is in distribution mode.

Monitoring Winding up Petitions

While not an everyday occurrence, a company being issued with a winding up petition is an eventuality that all providers of finance, whether on a secured or unsecured basis, will prepare for.

From a contractual perspective, facility agreements will include specific monitoring information covenants as part of the core relationship housekeeping, supported by a hard backstop of event of default triggers, with rights for debt acceleration, and (if applicable) security enforcement operating in tandem from that point.

In a recent decision that will add some welcomed clarity to the imposition of Part A1 moratoriums over companies which have been presented with a winding-up petition, the High Court has reflected on the requirements of section A4 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”) and confirmed the test that must be satisfied in order for it to make such an order.

The case ofLiberty Commodities Ltd v Citibank NA London & Ors [2023] EWHC 2020 (Ch) provides a helpful reminder of the principles that the court will adopt when dealing with a winding up petition – particularly where there are supporting creditors.

The Court of Appeal has unanimously overturned an unlawful preference ruling from the High Court, finding instead that the repayment of inter-company debt did not amount to a preference because, at the time the operative decision to make the repayment occurred, there was no desire to prefer.