The High Court has found the former directors of collapsed retail chain BHS liable for wrongful trading, misfeasant trading and individual acts of misfeasance.

Although overall quantum is yet to be decided, this has been widely reported as the largest wrongful trading award the courts have made since the introduction of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Seven years after the British Home Stores Group Limited, a well known high street retailer, and its operating subsidiaries entered liquidation, the High Court has found two former directors liable for wrongful trading and misfeasance.

Background

In a recent decision,the High Court ordered two former directors of BHS (British Home Stores) to pay at least £18m to creditors for their role in the collapse of the former high street giant.

This week:

Overview

Background

The Times revealed in an article last month that, according to a report from the Audit Reform Lab, a think tank at the University of Sheffield, only a quarter of the 250 largest companies listed on the London Stock Exchange to become insolvent between 2010 and 2022 had a “going concern” warning included by their auditors in what would turn out to be their final set of accounts. Of those companies 38 also declared a dividend in those accounts.

The High Court has handed down a 533-page judgment in proceedings brought by the liquidators of BHS against its former directors for wrongful trading and misfeasance trading, finding them personally liable for at least £18 million. The case is of great significance to directors of distressed companies. We analyse some key points arising.

Click here to view the judgment.

Background

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has decisively redrawn the boundaries between arbitration agreements and insolvency proceedings in the case of Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd.[1]

Overview

The scope and extent of a director's duty is of particular interest to officeholders of companies and their D&O insurers.

How can creditors reduce the risk of a fixed charge being characterised as floating?

The determination as to whether a charge over a valuable asset is fixed or floating can be crucial to a creditor's recovery in an insolvency. To have two cases over the course of little more than a year providing detailed analysis of the nature of fixed and floating charges is indeed a treat. Are there any practical steps creditors can take to reduce the risk of a fixed charge being characterised as floating?

Fluctuating assets?