In my recent article with respect to individuals applying for bankruptcy online, dated 4 April 2016, I reported that the Insolvency Service must be vigilant with respect to abuse. In particular, it is a debtor’s duty is to provide the Official Receiver or Trustee with details of all known assets. Failing to do this is an offence, under Section 354(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Following on from our recent blog post on Ralls Builders Limited (in liquidation) [2016] EWHC 243 (Ch), in which Mr Justice Snowdon discussed the issues around wrongful trading under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the quantum of liability that may be placed on directors who continue to trade when they knew, or ought to have known, that the company was insolvent, the Financial Reporting Council (“FRC”) has issued new guidance on the going concern basis of accounting and reporting on solvency and liquidity risks.

Introduction

Generally, directors are focused on making a success of the business to which they are appointed and the prospect of insolvency and the potential for personal liability often seems remote. Indeed, many directors will never have to face the difficult decisions associated with a struggling business. However, when they do, they often rely on the advice of experienced insolvency professionals.

Summary

Key point

• Purely voluntary redress payments are not caught by a paragraph 99 charge

The facts

Section 262(1) of the IA 1986 provides that a debtor, creditor or nominee may apply to the court where: (a) a voluntary arrangement approved by a creditors’ meeting summoned under section 257 unfairly prejudices the interests of a creditor of the debtor, or (b) there has been some material irregularity at or in relation to such a meeting. 

In February 2016, Mr Justice Snowden handed down his judgment in the High Court proceedings concerning Ralls Builders Limited (in liquidation) [2016] EWHC 243 (Ch). This matter concerned an application by the liquidators of Ralls Builders Limited (in liquidation) (the company) for a declaration regarding the alleged wrongful trading of the company by its directors, under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).

A company’s former administrators sought an order under the Insolvency Act 1986 that their remuneration and expenses should be payable out of a sum owed to the company from National Westminster Bank Plc (Natwest). The company entered into interest rate swaps with Natwest. After the swaps terminated, the company granted a fixed charge and debenture over its assets to a third party. Administrators were appointed and recorded costs of over £164,000 before the company was dissolved.

The recent decisions in Re MF Global UK Ltd and Re Omni Trustees Ltd give conflicting views as to whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect. In this article, we look at the reasoning in the two judgments and discuss a possible further argument for extra-territorial effect.

The conflicting rulings on section 236

This article takes a look at the considerations laid down in Re Sahaviriya Steel Industries UKLimited [2015] EWHC 2726 when the court is asked to make a validation against anticipated payments – what guidance can be extracted?