The proposal to reinstate Crown preference in insolvency has met resistance from all angles; the insolvency profession, turnaround experts, accountants, lawyers and funders. But despite HMRC’s bold statement in its consultation paper that the re-introduction of Crown preference will have little impact on funders, it is clear following a discussion with lenders that it may well have a far wider impact on existing and new business, business rescue and the economy in general than HMRC believes.

Paul Muscutt, London restructuring partner at law firm Squire Patton Boggs, talks to Andrew Tate, former R3 President, Chair of R3’s Policy Group and Partner at accountancy firm Kreston Reeves LLP, about conflicts of interest in the restructuring and insolvency profession*.

Administrators are statutorily entitled to require a receiver to vacate office (paragraph 41 Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)). In Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd vCraig and another [2017] EWHC 2405 (Ch) they did just that, taking steps to remove existing receivers not long after their appointment, claiming the action to be in the interests of all the creditors. On the facts, that decision was not only unreasonable but costs were also awarded personally against the administrators.

Brief facts and arguments

There are various ways misconduct can be reported in respect of companies and individuals. Establishing which authority has the power to conduct investigations of wrongdoing depends to a certain extent on the status of the companies and individuals.

The recent Court of Appeal case of JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Limited v. Davis Haulage Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 267 has set out the importance of there being a settled intention to enter administration and indicated that this is a pre-requisite to an out of court appointment being validly made.

The High Court has recently held that an individual may claim the proceeds of the sale of assets subject to an agricultural charge by the application of the equitable remedy of marshalling.

Agricultural Sector

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the status of contingent assets within the balance sheet test for insolvency in the context of a company’s inability to pay its debts. Under Section 123 Insolvency Act 1986, a company is deemed unable to pay its debts if its assets are less than its liabilities including contingent liabilities but nothing is said about the status of contingent assets.

From today (1 April), creditors can present a winding up petition without (a) having to give 21 days to the debtor company to make proposals to pay, and (b) being owed a debt(s) of £10,000. Given that all temporary restrictions and processes have now ended, the ‘gloves are off’ when it comes to debt collection.

Although presenting a winding up petition incurs a hefty court fee, the effect (or even threat) of a winding up petition can elicit a swift payment to avoid the consequences that an outstanding petition can present to a debtor company, including

Directors' Duties and Related Matters, in the Context of COVID-19

EMEA UK 2 July 2021

Scope and Purpose of This Note

This note summarises the duties that directors of companies incorporated in England and Wales are subject to.

This note explains those duties, and matters that directors should consider in relation to them, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Government has issued a consultation paper regarding statutory audits and financial reporting. The consultation makes proposals in relation to four areas, namely directors, auditors and audit firms, shareholders and the audit regulator.