Manolete Partners Plc, an insolvency litigation finance company, has successfully claimed against the former director of Just Recruit Group Ltd (Just Recruit) and awarded £918,590. The Insolvency and Companies Court of the High Court found that the director of Just Recruit, Norman Freed, had breached his directorial duties to the company during the business's financial collapse.

Background

Introduction:

In an insolvency case involving both UK trustees and Russian Bank Creditors, the High Court issued guidance in regards to the potential breach of the 2019 Regulations surrounding sanctioned entities. The significant criminal and civil penalties potentially arising from this case make it a consequential and relevant case for UK arbitration and litigation lawyers to consider and understand. The final ruling deals with three key questions, as outlined in the court proceedings and expanded upon below.

Case Summary:

Construction insolvency is not a new problem. With the continued presence of fixed price contracts, in an industry which has always been troubled with cash flow problems and low profit margins, coupled with persistent cost inflation and labour and materials issues affecting the supply chain, it is no surprise that we continue to see insolvencies. The question is, what can you do to protect yourself from insolvency?

The amendments recently notified to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Information Utilities) Regulations, 2017, require the information utility to verify key details such as the e-mail address of the debtor, the document showing proof of debt, etc. before issuance of record of default.

The court has provided guidance on how to protect personal representatives in potentially insolvent estates in Wedgwood v Hosein and another [2024].

The recent High Court decisions in Boughey & Anor v Toogood International Transport and Agricultural Services Ltd and Re Pindar Scarborough Ltd (in administration) have helpfully provided clarity on the extent to which secured creditors that have been paid in full are required to consent to proposed administration extensions. Unhelpfully, however, the court’s approach is fundamentally at odds with the position of the Insolvency Service.

Hajime Ueno, Masaru Shibahara and Kotaro Fuji, Nishimura & Asahi

This is an extract from the 2025 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

Pierre Dzakpasu, Anne Jesudason and Florence W Y Li, Mayer Brown

This is an extract from the 2025 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales regarding unfair preference claims - In the matter of Pacific Plumbing Group Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2024] NSWSC 525 – Justice Black provides guidance to liquidators on what is required to recover payments made to a third party on behalf of an insolvent company as unfair preferences.

In particular, the case highlighted that a liquidator has the burden of proof to show that:

When a legal dispute is brought to court, court fees are payable. Court fee is the fee levied by the judicial authority for handling the case. The amount of these fees depends, for example, on the nature of the case, a litigant’s income, and whether a natural person or legal entity is litigating. Under these circumstances, a (legal) person may qualify for the reduced court fee for insolvent persons.

Reduced court fee for insolvent persons

Pursuant to the Civil Cases Fees Act, the reduced court fee for the insolvent may be levied in the following two cases: