The retail sector and its suppliers operate at the sharp end of the economy and feel the impact of tighter consumer spending with more immediacy than most other sectors.

In the context of joint liquidators’ applications for documents “belonging to” the company or “relating to” its affairs (under sections 324 and 326 of the Insolvency Act 1986), the High Court confirmed that English law applied to determine whether documents could be withheld by the Luxembourg lawyers who were respondents to the application.

In what is likely to be the most significant change to the UK restructuring and insolvency market since the Enterprise Act 2002, the Court has yesterday¹ paved the way for restructuring plans under Part 26A to the Companies Act 2006 ("RPs") to be used to compromise the rights of landlords, financial creditors and other unsecured creditors provided the company shows that those creditors are "out of the money". There may even be no need to ask those compromised creditors to vote on the RP.

The High Court has dismissed a strike out application in respect of a claim brought under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) in respect of an alleged transaction defrauding creditors, holding that it is not necessary to prove a freestanding connection between the defendant and England, separate from the litigation itself, in order to obtain relief: Suppipat v Narongdej [2020] EWHC 3191 (Comm).

The Government on 20 May 2020 published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, which contains the most far-reaching reforms to UK insolvency law in over 30 years. The Bill has been introduced on an emergency basis in an attempt to ensure that otherwise financially viable companies survive during a period of unprecedented interruption and turmoil.

Revisiting over 150 years of case law, the High Court has resolved a question on which both the courts and textbooks had given conflicting answers: is a director's liability for payment of a dividend which is unlawful as a result of incorrect accounts fault-based or strict?

In Nicholas Stewart Wood and David John Standish (as the joint trustees in bankruptcy of Karl Eric Watkin) v Kate Rebecca Watkin [2019] EWHC 1311 (Ch), trustees in bankruptcy sought to establish that a bankrupt (theBankrupt) was the sole beneficial owner of three properties (theProperties), ostensibly purchased by him for his adult daughter. The High Court refused the application and held that the Bankrupt was not the sole beneficial owner of the Properties.

In high stakes restructurings, directors can be under significant pressure from different parts of the capital structure to take (or refrain from taking) certain actions. It is critical that the board understands whether it owes duties to members or creditors (or both). For such an important issue, the law has previously been remarkably unclear.

The High Court has held that a claim by a creditor under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 does not fall within the jurisdictional gateway permitting service out of the jurisdiction at common law for claims “under an enactment which allows proceedings to be brought”: Orexim Trading Limited v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited [2017] EWHC 2663 (Comm).

In the latest decision in the long running Pugachevdispute, the High Court considered the effect of five trusts set up by Mr Pugachev, and whether the trusts were shams. Birss J held that he would have been prepared to declare the five trusts shams, but on the true interpretation of the trust documents and considering the powers reserved to Mr Pugachev as protector, all five trusts were, in effect, bare trusts for the benefit of Mr Pugachev.