The Insolvency Service describes itself as the government agency that provides public services to those affected by financial distress or failure. It's core purpose is to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress, tackling financial wrongdoing and maximising returns to creditors. In order to achieve that purpose, the Insolvency Service utilises its investigation and enforcement powers to tackle financial or other misconduct.

Bilta (UK) Ltd in liquidation) & others v Muhammad Nazir & others [30.07.12]

High Court refuses to accept that a claim by an insolvent one-man company against its director for breach of his duties would be barred by ex turpi causa.

Bilta had two directors, one of whom owned all the company’s issued shares, effectively making it a "one-man company". The directors used Bilta to perpetrate a huge VAT fraud which left the company owing £38 million to HMRC. As a result, it was placed into insolvent liquidation.

The Court of Appeal has confirmed the High Court's decision that the "Balance Sheet Test" (for whether a company is unable to pay its debts under Section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986) cannot be reduced to a single formula or set of principles that apply to all companies.

The Balance Sheet Test forms part of the provisions that regulate when a company may be compulsorily wound up by the Court.

In a decision that demonstrates a considerable degree of common sense, Lord Glennie has confirmed that in certain liquidations one can dispense with the usual requirement for a Reporter to be appointed to consider a liquidator's accounts. The decision forms part of an Opinion issued by Lord Glennie in relation to the winding-up of Park Gardens Investments Limited ("the Company").

In a decision handed down just before the end of term, auditors have won an important House of Lords ruling limiting their liability in cases where a “one man” company is used as a vehicle for fraud. The Law Lords dismissed by a majority of three to two a negligence claim brought against an audit firm for failing to detect a massive fraud at Stone & Rolls, a trading company that fell in the late 1990s – holding that the liquidators could not bring a claim for damages when the company itself was responsible for the fraud.

Background

In a judgment issued on 15 December in the English High Court (Lehman Brothers International (Europe)(in administration) v CRC Credit Fund Limited & Ors [2009] EWHC 3228), and based on assumed facts presented to him, Mr Justice Briggs described the failure by LBIE to protect client monies from the impact of insolvency as "truly spectacular" and involving "shocking underperformance".

In a recent case, BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others, the High Court was asked to consider the circumstances in which the directors of a company are required to consider the interests of creditors and the extent to which the payment of a dividend by a company can be susceptible to challenge under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

On April 20, the House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing to discuss public policy issues raised by last month’s report of court-appointed bankruptcy examiner for Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (Lehman Brothers), Mr. Anton R. Valukas. The Committee heard testimony from the following witnesses:

Panel One:

Yesterday, the Special Inspector General for the Trouble Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) released a report criticizing the Treasury Department’s role in the accelerated closure of hundreds of GM and Chrysler dealerships.

The US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) estimates that by the end of 2010, more than 300 banks will have failed, and that the cost of resolving these failures may reach $100 billion over the next four years.1