Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In Re C A & T Developments Ltd, the court found that the appointment of administrators had been motivated by an improper purpose and the purpose of the administration could not be achieved. In an application under Paragraph 81 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), the court therefore ordered the administration to end and the company to be wound up compulsorily.

This judgment is an important one. It concerned an application by the joint liquidators of Comet (formerly joint administrators) for directions permitting them not to carry out any further investigation into the validity of the fixed and floating charge held by a single purpose vehicle (“HAL”) that had been granted by Comet under a year before it collapsed into administration. The joint liquidators also sought a direction that they be permitted to transfer a further tranche of funds to HAL that had been realised in the administration.

Are the regimes of construction adjudication and insolvency incompatible? Recent Court of Appeal authority suggested that they are, but in Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (In Liquidation) v 12-18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd [2019] EWHC (TCC), Adam Constable QC sitting as a district judge in the high court has clarified the exceptional circumstances in which a company in liquidation can enforce an adjudicator’s decision in its favour.

The case of Hunt (as Liquidator of System Building Services Group Ltd) v Michie & Ors [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch) examines whether directors’ duties continue after the company has become insolvent and confirms that they do, bringing welcome clarity to the point. As such, Insurers will need to review their policies to make clear if they wish to cover this risk.

Systems Building Services Group Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch)

Liquidation is not a panacea for the relevance and application of directors' duties. A practical example of which involves a director of a company in insolvency procuring and agreeing to an off-market sale of a property to himself by a rogue IP at a price which he knew to be a significant undervalue.

Section 239(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “1986 Act”) limits the jurisdiction to reverse a preference to situations where “the company which gave the preference was influenced in deciding to give it by a desire to produce” the prohibited result. This involves a subjective enquiry which turns on the relevant actor’s state of mind.

In the landmark decision in Re Systems Building Services Group Limited [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch), ICC Judge Barber held that the duties of a director survive the insolvency of a company.

On 25 February 2020, the High Court handed down an important ruling: Granville Technology Group Limited (In Liquidation) and Others v Elpida Memory (Europe) Gmbh and Others [2020] EWHC 415 (Comm). This is the first ruling by an English Court on how the Limitation Act 1980 should be applied to secret cartel claims.

This article first appeared in Corporate Rescue and Insolvency (2019) 6 CRI 218.

In this journal in 2015, I wrote on the subject 'Funding insolvency litigation: a new dawn', outlining various streams of funding available to insolvency practitioners (IPs) (see (2015) 5 CRI 183). Since then, the sun has set on one era and risen again. This article considers key developments in litigation funding in recent years, as well as upcoming reforms which may further change the landscape.

Key Points

With the States of Guernsey's approval yesterday of the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (the "Ordinance"), Guernsey took a step towards further enhancing its reputation as a robust jurisdiction for restructuring and insolvency.