Alex Jay, Tim Symes, Charlie Mercer and Aleks Valkov consider a recent decision relating to alleged transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“s423”). Stewarts act for the fifth, sixth and eighth defendants.

What does the "Wagatha Christie" debacle and the restructuring tool known as a CVA have in common? Answer: ask anyone and they will tell you exactly what "team" they support. Either you are "team CVA" and to you a CVA is a very useful restructuring tool, which allows a company to reorganise its affairs in a comprehensive manner. Alternatively you are "team landlord" and a CVA is just a device which is being used tactically to shaft property stakeholders.

It would appear that the trend we reported in the rising numbers of Scottish corporate insolvencies is showing no let up.

This question had until recent times been a conundrum of modern fixed charge receiverships (as well as receivers appointed under the Law of Property Act 1925), because in the scenario of the receiver seeking to step in and deal with property, the receiver is also said to be the borrower's deemed agent. It therefore begged a thorny question of the receiver, about how to reconcile being on both sides of the possession action.

Insolvency officeholders seeking to realise claims or other rights of action will take comfort from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Edengate [2022] EWCA Civ 626.

The Court held that failure by a liquidator to give a defendant the opportunity to buy or settle a claim against it before selling the claim to a third party is not necessarily perverse. However, it may often be sensible or good practice to do so.

There are significant differences in the procedures available to lenders north and south of the border when it comes to enforcing fixed charges or standard securities over real/heritable property. In this blog, we will compare the process in England & Wales ("E&W") of appointing a fixed charge or "LPA" receiver with the Scottish calling-up procedure

England & Wales: LPA receivers

In Re Edengate Homes (Butley Hall) Limited (in liquidation) [2022] EWCACiv 626, the Court of Appeal considered a challenge to an assignment of claims by a liquidator.

The Commercial Court (Andrew Baker J) has handed down judgment on a jurisdiction challenge inInvest Bank v El-Husseini[2022] EWHC 894 (Comm). Daniel Warents (whose oral submission to the Court were said to have been “very well presented”) and Emma Hughes acted for the first, third, and fourth defendants (instructed by Streathers Solicitors LLP).

The recent company insolvency statistics for Q1 2022 show the number of company insolvencies is continuing to increase. The figures show creditors’ voluntary liquidations as being the most common procedure followed by compulsory liquidations – the number of which is more than twice as high as in the previous quarter, although still below pre-pandemic levels.

It is often the case, that insolvency claims are pursued against former directors of the insolvent company or persons connected to them. It is also often the case, that such claims are assigned to a litigation funding company given lack of funds in the insolvent estate to pursue them. This is what happened in Lock v Stanley where various claims against the former directors, their parents and connected company were assigned to Manolete.