The recent case of Manolete Partners Plc v Hayward and Barrett Holdings Ltd [2021] EWHC 1481 (Ch) impacts both insolvency practitioners and assignees of insolvency claims, potentially making such claims more expensive to bring and a procedural burden by requiring (depending on the nature of the pleaded claims) two sets of proceedings, even though the claims arise from the same facts.

The Australian government has taken swift action to enact new legislation that significantly changes the insolvency laws relevant to all business as a result of the ongoing developments related to COVID-19.

The Australian government has taken swift action to enact new legislation that significantly changes the insolvency laws relevant to all business as a result of the ongoing developments related to COVID-19. 

In Marex Financial Ltd v Sevilleja [2020] UKSC 31, the UK Supreme Court has opened the way for a judgment creditor to sue a controller of companies who denuded the companies and placed them in liquidation to defeat the creditor's enforcement of a US$5 million judgment. The Court of Appeal had ruled that the creditor was caught by the so-called "reflective principle" that prevents shareholders recovering losses suffered in common with the company. Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia and other common law jurisdictions are almost certain to follow suit.

Our recent blog discussed the decision in Re Carluccio’s Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 88D (Ch) where the Court considered whether administrators would “adopt” the employment contracts of employees they furloughed after the 14 day grace period.

We previously considered the potential implications for insolvency professionals of the rise of cryptocurrencies (available here). One of the principal issues identified was the uncertainty surrounding the legal status of cryptocurrencies; what class of asset were they and, subsequently, how would they be treated under English law?

When can an insolvency practitioner pursue directors for declaring unlawful dividends?

Does an insolvency practitioner need to demonstrate that the directors knew, or ought to have known, that the dividend was paid unlawfully, or is it a strict liability issue?

Can director/shareholders rely on professionally prepared accounts to avoid liability?

Last month, Congress reintroduced the Small Business Reorganization Act (“SBRA”), under which a new subchapter V would be added to chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. This new subchapter would provide small businesses with aggregate liabilities that do not exceed $2,566,050 with an opportunity to resolve outstanding liabilities through a streamlined and cost‑effective chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.

The recent High Court decision in Caribonum Pension Trustee Limited v Pelikan Hardcopy Production AG [2018] EWHC 2321 (Ch) will provide some comfort for pension plan trustees owed money by insolvent sponsoring employers by allowing trustees to pursue guarantors within the same group for those debts.

What was contended to be an abuse of Court process has been confirmed by the Court as a legitimate debt recovery strategy. This was on the basis that a contractual agreement, a guarantee, was in place that was legitimately enforceable by a pension plan trustee.

In an article that first appeared on LexisNexis on 26 February 2018, Jon Chesman examines a High Court decision which found the applicant liquidator of a company had made out her case that a transfer of stock from the company to the first respondent, a former director of the company, amounted to a preference and a transaction at an undervalue, so relief ought to be granted under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Breese (liquidator of Flexi Containers Ltd) v Hiley and others [2018] EWHC 12 (Ch), [2018] All ER (D) 77 (Jan)