On 8 April 2025, Mr Justice Marcus Smith delivered judgment granting Petrofac Limited and Petrofac International (UAE) LLC (the Plan Companies) permission to convene creditor meetings in respect of two inter-conditional restructuring Plans (the Plans). The fulsome judgment, following hearings on 28 February and 20 March, contains a number of interesting points:

As the ‘slow crush’ of persistently high interest rates bites, businesses of all kinds are struggling and many are reaching the point of failure, as indicated by each month’s number of creditors’ voluntary liquidations (CVLs) charting higher than the same period a year prior. The latest statistics from The Insolvency Service reveal that registered company insolvencies in October 2023 were 18% higher than in the same month in 2022.

The Insolvency Service now has extended powers when it comes to directors dissolving companies to avoid paying their liabilities.

These powers have been granted under the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act, which was given royal assent on 15 December 2021.

A number of key decisions from the English courts in 2021 illustrate the litigation trends that are likely to have implications for the financial services industry in 2022 and beyond (see below “Cases to watch in 2022”).

Market misconduct and mis-selling

In the first of a series of claims issued by ECU Group Plc in relation to alleged wrongdoing in the foreign exchange markets by a number of banks, the High Court held that:

In brief

The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act ("Act") received royal assent on 15 December 2021.

The Act extends the scope of powers available to the Insolvency Service to address the issue of directors dissolving companies to avoid paying their liabilities.

In brief

The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act ("Act") received royal assent on 15 December 2021.

The Act extends the scope of powers available to the Insolvency Service to address the issue of directors dissolving companies to avoid paying their liabilities.

In Short

The Situation: Insolvency officeholders increasingly find their investigations into a company's affairs frustrated by the comingling of records on a "group" server. Claims to privilege by other group entities (or even third parties) are then advanced as an obstacle to delivering company records to the officeholder, leading to expensive and logistically complex inspection and review processes that can be a burden on insolvent estates.

Few things go together as naturally as fraud and insolvency. The pattern is now well rehearsed: scams pile up unnoticed while money flows in the good times, but when recession hits, increased scrutiny from lenders, counterparties and the tax man – not to mention insolvency practitioners – means fraud is far more likely to be discovered.

Introduction

In R (on the application of KBR, Inc) (Appellant) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Respondent) [2021] UKSC 2¹ the Supreme Court held that the Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") may not compel a foreign company to produce documents held overseas under section 2(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 ("CJA 1987").

Landmark decision holds that the SFO does not have the power to procure documents from foreign companies outside the jurisdiction.