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.

Sports Direct International plc's last-minute offer to buy substantially all of the assets of House of Fraser out of administration is the latest example of a pre-packaged administration being used to rescue a failing business and continue it as a going concern.

The House of Fraser pre-pack sale to Sports Direct, the British retail group headed by Mike Ashley, was announced almost immediately after House of Fraser entered into administration, and included a transfer of its UK stores, the brand and all of its stock and employees.

Meem SL Limited was an unsuccessful start-up company in the United Kingdom.  The board resolved to put the company into administration and sell the business to a company owned by the directors.

The UK government announced on 26 August 2018 that it will legislate to update the restructuring and insolvency systems, with the aim of the UK retaining the gold standard regime. The reforms are a response to international developments (with countries such as Spain and the Netherlands recently introducing updated insolvency systems) and some domestic corporate collapses which have put the UK system under stress.

The reforms are wide-ranging. Headline changes will include:

Golden Rule 1: comply with the 7 general duties in the Companies Act 2006 (“the Act”)

In your capacity as a director you need to individually and personally comply with the seven codified statutory duties as a starting point.

The Court of Appeal judgment in JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov, Madiyar Ablyazov [2018] EWCA Civ 1176 confirms the correct approach when assessing the ‘prohibited purpose’ element of section 423 claims.

Summary

Orexim Trading Limited v (1) Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited ("MPT") (2) Singmalloyd Marine (S) PTE Limited ("Singmalloyd") (3) Zen Shipping and Ports India Private Limited ("Zen") [2018]

In a decision that will be of particular interest to creditors and insolvency practitioners contemplating section 423 Insolvency Act claims against defendants based outside the EU, the Court of Appeal has refused a claimant permission to serve a claim out of the jurisdiction.

The Judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port And Terminal Private Ltd (formerly known as Fourcee Port and Terminal Private Ltd) [2018] EWCA Civ 1660, [2018] All ER (D) 101 (Jul) on 13 July 2018 provided important clarification as to the service of claims under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") out of the jurisdiction.

The Facts

The insolvency aspect of the long-running Baxendale-Walker litigation adds much needed to clarity to two practical issues arising in bankruptcy.

The case of Davey v Money and Anor (2018) EWHC 766 (Ch) should serve as a gentle warning to secured creditors to be aware of the level of their involvement in the administration of a customer.

Background

Angel House Development Limited (“AHDL“), a property development company, borrowed £16 million from Dunbar Assets Plc (“Dunbar“) in order to fund the purchase and redevelopment of a property, Angel House, in Tower Hamlets. Dunbar took security for the loan(s) in the form of a debenture.