A misfeasance claim under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA) is often a race against time to gather evidence and bring a claim before the limitation period expires. Not only can the breach pre-date the liquidation by years, but the difficulty is even greater where there is a maze of group companies and intra-group transfers. It takes time to properly work out whether a simple transfer of assets between group companies is actually a corporate shield hiding misappropriated assets.

House of Fraser (HOF) has been in the headlines for months. It started with reports of widening losses and being dragged down by soaring costs and a drop in consumer sales, but official comment from the 169-year old retailer remained positive. Then there were rumours of CVAs and negotiations with landlords leading to further controversy. Finally, last Friday (10 August 2018), a stock market announcement delivered the news that Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct had brought House of Fraser out of administration for £90 million, just hours after the store had announced its collapse.

As if business leaders did not have enough to contend with in the current economic and geopolitical climate, the trend towards increased personal accountability for company directors is continuing and can be expected to increase further. How can directors protect themselves? As a start it is important for both executive and non-executive directors to understand the overarching principles involved and how they link together.

The basic duties set out in the Companies Act 2006

As the nights drew in, the end of 2017 saw a flurry of case law on security for costs, and particularly its interaction with after the event (ATE) insurance and litigation funding. This article considers what insights can be gleaned for litigants who do not want to be left out in the cold.

Premier Motorauctions: security for costs and ATE

The raft of European and domestic litigation surrounding Mastercard fees has been long running and frankly, brain achingly complex. Hidden in the masses of litigation, the topic has sparked little interest in insolvency practitioners. However, it has the potential to generate realisations in liquidated estates where there may otherwise be nothing to offer creditors, and it warrants attention as a result.

Attachment of earnings - money is paid directly from the judgment debtor’s wages/salary into court by the debtor’s employer to satisfy the judgment debt.

Bankruptcy proceedings - you can currently apply to make an individual judgment debtor bankrupt for a judgment debt in excess of £5,000. The limit is £500 for applying to put a company into liquidation. The nuclear options.

The past 12-18 months have seen some of the biggest changes to established insolvency law and practice in England and Wales since the Insolvency Act 1986 and Insolvency Rules 1986 (the old Rules) came into force. These have culminated with the new Insolvency Rules 2016 (the new Rules), which become effective on 6 April 2017 and are intended to consolidate the old Rules (including all 28 subsequent sets of amendments to them).

Legislation soon to take force creates a new special administration regime for private providers of social housing, introducing changes that will transform restructuring in the sector.

When this topic was last considered two years ago, there was a real danger of pension rights (previously thought of as sacrosanct) being within the reach of trustees in bankruptcy by way of an income payments order (IPO). There were also two conflicting first instance decisions in play. The issue? Whether a pension entitlement capable of drawdown by election, but not yet in payment, can fall within the definition of income in section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86), and so be the potential subject of an IPO.

Savers who become bankrupt but have not yet drawn their pensions will not have to hand them to creditors after a ruling of the Court of Appeal put an end to fears that pension pots were at risk.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s ruling on Horton v Henry, originally heard in 2014, settling legal difficulties arising from a conflicting judgment of Raithatha v Williamson (2012); and the introduction of the pension freedoms.