The court has decided to allow a shareholder to pursue a derivative claim on behalf of a company that was placed into a pre-pack administration.

What happened?

Montgold Capital LLP v Ilska and others involved a restaurant company which was placed into a “pre-pack” administration, under which its entire business was sold, in late 2016.

Amid all the usual politics of the Government’s Budget this week, one seemingly low-key change might be of considerable interest to lenders and insolvency practitioners. The Chancellor announced that from 6 April 2020 HMRC will once again benefit from a Crown preference.

As part of its toolkit to improve rescue opportunities for financially-distressed companies, the Government has announced that:

"Companies will be supported through a rescue process by the introduction of new rules to prevent suppliers terminating contracts solely by virtue of a company entering an insolvency process."

The right to terminate contracts on this basis is already restricted for supplies of essential utilities and IT services. However, this only affects quite a narrow range of suppliers.

The Government has announced that it will legislate to prohibit the enforcement of certain contractual termination clauses ('ipso facto clauses').

As with other aspects of the response to recent insolvency and corporate governance consultations, this has given us pause for thought.

The Government has published its response and action plan following its consultation in March this year on reforming the UK’s corporate governance landscape in the context of insolvent companies.

In its original consultation, the Government put forward various proposals to deal with perceived deficiencies in the management of troubled companies that may be leading to poorer outcomes for creditors, employees and other stakeholders.

In March 2018, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) published a consultation on proposed reforms to the UK’s insolvency and corporate governance landscape. That consultation included certain significant proposals, including extending liability to the directors of holding companies that sell insolvent subsidiaries.

The High Court has found that two directors and one former director of a company were in breach of their duties by causing the company to implement a reorganisation and a capital reduction when they were aware there was a risk it would lose its source of income.

In addition, the statutory statement of solvency supporting the capital reduction was invalid because the director had not formed the opinion set out in it. As a result, the capital reduction and a subsequent dividend were unlawful, and the directors were liable to repay the dividend.

What happened?

The High Court has held that two director-shareholders of a company who were unsuccessfully prosecuted for fraud could not claim back the drop in the value of their shares when the company’s business failed.

What happened?

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has published a consultation on insolvency and corporate governance.

The consultation is aimed primarily at improving corporate governance in firms that are in or approaching insolvency. However, it also puts forward proposals for improving the wider framework of corporate governance.

The key proposals from the consultation are set out below.

The decision in Mezhprom v Pugachev, which was handed down on 11 October 2017, has potentially wide-ranging ramifications for trustees and the private client industry more generally.

Although the judgment is a first instance decision and may be appealed, the approach taken by the judge in this case to the analysis of powers conferred on protectors is an important development.