Judgment was handed down last week on the substantial directors' duties and wrongful trading claims brought against former directors of various BHS companies^[1].

Dispute Resolution analysis: An application by a Russian trustee in bankruptcy has succeeded in striking out some parts of a defence to a claim that a share transfer was a sham or a transaction defrauding creditors. Other parts of the defence were not, however struck out.

Kireeva (as trustee and bankruptcy manager of Bedzhamov) v Zolotova and Basel Properties Limited [2024] EWHC 552 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Dispute Resolution analysis: An application by the former administrators of a company for an increase in their remuneration has been dismissed, despite the Court concluding that they had standing to bring the application itself.

Frost and another v The Good Box Co Labs Limited and others [2024] EWHC 422 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Dispute Resolution analysis: In November 2023, Mr Justice Miles sanctioned restructuring plans under section 901F of the Companies Act 2006 in respect of two companies within the Atento group. The plans had significant creditor support, did not involve any cross-claim cram down and achieved a demonstrably better outcome for creditors than the alternative, a group-wide liquidation.

Re Atento UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 3076 (Ch))

What are the practical implications of this case?

Fraudulent trading is both a civil and criminal offence. The recent judgment of the High Court in Bouchier v Booth provided a helpful reminder of the principles that a Court will apply when considering whether directors have acted in a manner that constitutes fraudulent trading and the high threshold for proving fraudulent conduct.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the previous decision of the High Court to sanction a restructuring plan ("Plan") that had been proposed by the Adler Group ("Adler") should be set aside. The decision marks the first appeal in relation to a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 ("Companies Act") and the decision offers clarity on the approach to restructuring plans, particularly when considering issues of "fairness".

The Supreme Court has provided welcome clarity for insolvency practitioners in confirming that administrators of a company appointed pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") will not be criminally liable for a failure by the company to comply with redundancy notification requirements.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In a second appeal, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decisions of two lower Courts in concluding that due to the conduct of a bankrupt and his insolvency, his bankruptcy should not (on an exercise of discretion) be annulled, despite concluding that the bankruptcy order should not have been made.

Khan v Singh-Sall and another [2023] EWHC 1119 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), office-holders are given wide powers but they are subject to the control of the court. In order to allow insolvency practitioners to carry out their duties efficiently and without having constantly to look over their shoulders, this control has always been exercised with a light touch. In recent years there have been several important cases examining these issues.[1]

After the tumult of the past few years, with emergency legislation being introduced to mitigate the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the last few months have felt relatively quiet in terms of new legislation. That said, there have been a number of important government publications in relation to the insolvency industry, and it appears that change is on the horizon.