We are receiving numerous enquiries regarding the fallout from the bankruptcy of OW Bunker A/S and certain associated companies.  At this stage, some companies are in formal bankruptcy proceedings, with the Court protection that usually entails, but others are not. 

An administrator who was sued in relation to contractual liabilities which he entered as administrator of a company was found to have no personal liability for those contracts or for the costs of the litigation.

In the recent case of Wright Hassall LLP v Morris¹ the claimant advanced various arguments in an attempt to make the administrator personally liable for a costs order in litigation where the defendant companies were unable to pay. These arguments were rejected.

In December’s Real Estate Update, insolvency Partner Vivien Tyrell considered a landlord’s ability to forfeit a lease where the tenant is in administration. Closely linked to this is a landlord’s ability to recover rent from a tenant which is in administration and the recent decision in Goldacre (Offices) Limited v Nortel Networks UK Limited (in administration) will be welcomed by landlords everywhere.

In Stephen John Hunt (Liquidator of Marylebone Warwick Balfour Management Ltd) v Richard Balfour-Lynn and others [2022] EWHC 784 (Ch), the High Court decided that the directors of a company which went into liquidation after participating in an ineffective tax avoidance scheme did not breach their fiduciary duties and payments made pursuant to the scheme were not transactions defrauding creditors.

Background

HM  Treasury  has  provided  the  Public  Bill  Committee  with  a  draft  copy  of  The Insolvency Act 1986 (HMRC Debts: Priority on Insolvency) Regulations  2020,  to  be  made  pursuant  to  the  current  clause  96  of  the  Finance  Bill  2020.  The  draft  regulations  have  not  yet  been  formally  laid  before  Parliament but are d

On 11 July 2019, HMRC published its summary of responses to its “protecting your taxes in insolvency” consultation.

Following the consultation, the government will legislate in the Finance Bill 2019-20 to make HMRC a secondary preferential creditor for certain tax debts paid by employees and taxpayers. This change is intended to ensure that when a business enters insolvency, more of the taxes paid in good faith by employees and taxpayers go to the Exchequer, rather than being distributed to other creditors. Draft legislation and an explanatory note is also available.

ADVISORY | DISPUTES | TRANSACTIONS Make insolvency great again February 2017 One of the great criticisms of the new President of the United States of America is that his companies filed for bankruptcy four times when he was a business mogul. In truth Donald Trump utilised various provisions of Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code to restructure his businesses. In an effort to encourage a similar level of entrepreneurial spirit, a mere 14 days after his election the EU Commission unveiled plans to adopt a pan-European regime which closely mirrors much of the US’s Chapter 11.

In Winnington Networks Communications Ltd v HMRC^[1], the Chancery Division Companies Court (Nicholas Le Poidevin QC) refused the taxpayer company's application to have HMRC's winding-up petitions dismissed, as it had failed to provide evidence that it had a real prospect of successfully disputing the debt claimed by HMRC.

Background

In June 2013 the Complaints Gateway was established to provide a single entry point for regulatory complaints against insolvency practitioners.  The Insolvency Service has published an analysis of the complaints received by the Complaints Gateway in its first 12 months; the headline being an increase in complaints being made against insolvency practitioners from 748 to 941 complaints.

The courts and FOS are now headed down very different paths in their approach to credit crunch losses suffered by clients of regulated firms. While FOS has all but abandoned the general law of causation in its approach to cases of consumer detriment, we have observed how the courts have held again and again that the general law of causation applies to mis-selling claims.