The government has introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill in Parliament, which will put in place a series of measures. This includes temporarily removing the threat of personal The liability for wrongful trading from directors trying to keep their companies afloat through the emergency. 

Insolvency of the suspected fraudster may seem the end of the hunt, unless an egg-hunter can establish a proprietary interest in the assets (see our blog yesterday). But it can offer additional clues, or alternative pots of treasure, whether the fraudster is an individual or corporate entity.

On 29 November 2016, the First-tier Tribunal9 held that the issue of growth shares to certain key employees had inadvertently caused an existing class of ordinary shares to carry a preferential right to assets on a winding up. The effect of this was that both prior ordinary share issues, and future share issues, failed to meet the requirement of the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) rules.

Removal of requirement for sanction

Previously under section 165 IA 86, liquidators in a voluntary winding up would have to seek sanction of the company (in members’ voluntary liquidation) or of the court or liquidation committee (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) in order to exercise their powers to pay debts, compromise claims etc. SBEEA removes this requirement so that liquidators can exercise those powers freely. This will aid expeditious winding up of companies. Equivalent provisions have also been put into place for trustees in bankruptcy.

We note with interest the Government's Discussion Paper, 'Transparency & Trust: Enhancing The Transparency of UK Company Ownership And Increasing Trust in UK Business', published yesterday.

In the Paper, the Government proposes to (amongst other things):

On 21 May 2010, Justice Floyd handed down his judgment in Bloomsbury International Ltd (in administration) v Mark Alan Holyoake.1 The case sheds light on the circumstances in which it is appropriate for a cross-undertaking provided by administrators on behalf of an insolvent company to be fortifi ed by a bank guarantee.

Facts

One pioneer in this area is Toby Duthie, the founder-director of Forensic Risk Alliance, a forensic accounting and investigations business. Duthie became familiar with the US litigation system while assisting European companies responding to US-based litigation. Duthie recognised that there were many differences between the US and the various EU legal systems. For example, unlike in the UK, the application of contingency fees to plaintiff actions is permissible in the US (see above).

On 21 December 2021 the Government launched a consultation into the future of insolvency regulation. The changes proposed in the consultation document will have a wide ranging impact on the insolvency profession (and its insurers) with the proposals including: the direct regulation of insolvency firms, the introduction of a single regulatory body with powers to order compensation against insolvency practitioners and firms, a new additional requirements regime, changes to the bond regime and a public register of insolvency practitioners and firms.

Applying for permission to advance fresh evidence on appeal is a tricky application, which has had varying degrees of success in the courts. Zheng Yougxiong v Gate Ventures Plc⁽¹⁾ is a useful example of the application of the criteria, albeit in the context of insolvency proceedings.

Background

Mr Zheng was a shareholder in, and creditor of, Gate Ventures plc. He sought and failed to obtain an administration order against Gate Ventures plc on the basis of a £2.5 million debt (the First Application).

On 26 February 2019, HMRC launched a consultation entitled “Protecting your tax in insolvency”, on the government’s proposal to make HMRC a secondary preferential creditor for taxes paid by employees and customers (the new powers are contained in the proposed Finance Bill 2019-20).