Creditors of English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) have appointed a licensed insolvency practitioner to act as his Trustee in Bankruptcy to investigate any claims against him and seek to recover any hidden assets.

Robinson applied for bankruptcy shortly after his divorce in February 2021, and while libel proceedings were ongoing against him. A bankruptcy order was made on 3 March 2021. In July 2021, Robinson was ordered to pay £100,000 in damages, together with legal costs, on top of his bankruptcy debts, which are estimated at £2m.

A recent order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Court”) allowed a debtor to reopen a completed auction based on a significantly more attractive, but untimely, bid. The late bid was approximately three times the cash consideration of the previously declared winning bid, and also provided for the additional containment of potential environmental risks. The decision is being appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “District Court”).

In what is believed to be the first reported decision on this issue, the High Court has allowed an appeal under section 205(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) against a decision of the Secretary of State to defer the dissolution of a company in liquidation.

A link to the judgement can be found here.

The facts

Administrators of Arena Television are reportedly investigating an alleged fraud involving millions of pandemic loans, where government-backed loans were offered to businesses to help them deal with the pandemic, and are suing two of the directors for breach of fiduciary duty. More companies may be in a similar position as, according to the National Audit Office, it is likely that the level of fraud in the bounce back loan scheme ranges from £3.5bn to £4.9bn. Who can claim these ill-gotten gains?

Directors’ duties

Judge Craig Whitley’s recent transfer of the LTL Management case will bring a high-profile "Texas Two-Step" chapter 11 bankruptcy to New Jersey, and it may open a new chapter in how courts approach the novel transaction designed to isolate and address certain mass-tort liabilities.

The Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill 2021 (the Bill) is expected to come into force from 25 March 2022 – it is intended to introduce an arbitration procedure for commercial rent arrears accrued by businesses during the “protected period” and also to extend the restrictions on the use of winding up proceedings and now to include personal bankruptcy.

The “protected period” relates to business tenancies adversely affected by the pandemic either by enforced closure or restrictions placed on trade. This period – as set out in section 5 of the Bill – runs from:

In the first three months of 2021, almost 40,000 companies were struck off the Companies House register – an increase of 743% on the same period in 2020. Speculation that these figures related to avoidance of coronavirus-related loan repayments led the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to take the highly unusual step, in March 2021, of making a blanket objection to any application for dissolution by a company with an unpaid bounce-back loan.

In FCA v Carillion [2021] EWCH 2871 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) enforcement action against Carillion Plc (in Liquidation) (Carillion) pursuant to certain provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) does not constitute an “action or proceeding” and therefore falls outside of the scope of the statutory stay imposed by section 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).

Section 130(2) of the Act

In a decision that will likely impact bankruptcy proceedings around the country, the Supreme Court recently denied the petition for writ of certiorari of David Hargreaves, which challenged the equitable mootness doctrine.¹ As a result, the concept of equitable mootness remains anything but moot.

A significant rise in criminal prosecutions of company directors indicates that the Insolvency Service is raising the stakes when it comes to pursuing the most egregious cases of wrongdoing. While typically the sanctions for a rogue director would be limited to disqualification proceedings, a small but growing number of directors are finding themselves facing criminal prosecution as a result of Insolvency Service action - with 122 convictions in the year to 30 September, compared to just 40 in the same period for the previous year.