The Insolvency Service has issued a call for evidence inviting comments on the issues with, and improvements that could be made to, the collective redundancy consultation requirements for employers faced with insolvency. 

In the recent case of Wilson (as liquidator of 375 Live Ltd) v SMC Properties Limited, the English High Court reviewed the policy behind section 127 Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”) and the underlying principles that apply to validation order applications.

The Supreme Court has held that, where a company had been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, the directors’ wrong-doing could not be attributed to the company to prevent it (or its liquidators) from bringing claims against the directors. 

Jetivia S.A. and another v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23

Insolvency practitioners and creditors alike will welcome the decision handed down by the Supreme Court on 22 April 2015. It reduces the wiggle room given to delinquent directors of insolvent companies when claims are brought against them, and confirms the extra-territorial effect of claims against third parties under the fraudulent trading provisions in section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

Background & Facts

The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a Court of Appeal decision refusing to strike out a claim by a “one-man” company in liquidation, which had been the vehicle for a VAT fraud, against its former directors and overseas suppliers alleged to have been involved in the fraud: Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited [2015] UKSC 23 (see our post on the Court of Appeal decision 

Months of anticipation culminated in a successful result for the Liquidators of Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) on 22 April 2015 in a pivotal fraud case, whereby the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal involving the ‘illegality defence’, in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23.

Liquidators and creditors of insolvent companies will be breathing a collective sigh of relief at the recent Supreme Court judgment in Jetivia v Bilta, where it held that the illegality defence was not available where a company, through its liquidators, was making claims against the directors for breaches of their duties to the company.  In some ways the result was not that surprising, but should it have gone the other way, it would have deprived liquidators of a well-used weapon in their armoury for bringing claims against directors who have defrauded a company on its way to i

Case: (The Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme (Appellants) v Olympic Airlines SA (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 27)

Illegality, attribution of knowledge, and Stone & Rolls: Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited

On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited¹, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.

In April 2013, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) came into force, making the success fee applied to a Conditional Fee Arrangement (CFA), and the After the Event (ATE) insurance premiums, irrecoverable by a successful party to litigation proceedings.  However, under article 4 of LAPSO, there is an "insolvency exemption" making these costs recoverable by an insolvency practitioner.