On 5 April 2022, the UK government published the first review of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (the Rules) (the Report). It is evident from the Report that many respondents took the opportunity to raise issues faced in practice, not just with the Rules, but with the operation of the insolvency legislation in general.

This article was originally published by ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE.

Introduction

There was a distinct air of positivity and delight to be out and about networking again at the FIRE Starters Global Summit in Dublin. Once again the event was well attended by a wonderful and dynamic group of international professionals from across the advisory spectrum in asset recovery, fraud and insolvency and many new networks were forged over the fun three-day event.

The recent English High Court decision of Re Glam and Tan Ltd [2022] EWHC 855 (Ch) highlights the ways in which a director can be found liable, as well as the reasons why they may be relieved of responsibility for breaches of section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which penalises delinquent directors and officers.

The legislation

There has been significant focus recently of the effect of tenants unable to operate their business. Unfortunately, we are seeing an increase in tenant liquidation during this downturn in the economy.

As a landlord, this can have a significant impact on enforcing your legal rights.

In particular:

The Court of Appeal has held that the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders (who nonetheless enjoy priority status in respect of their creditor claims), providing some much-needed clarity on this issue for e-money institutions and their clients.

A link to the judgment can be found here.

Background

Insolvency practitioners will welcome the confirmation that they cannot be expected to be aware of same degree of information as if company was still trading

In the recent Court of Appeal case of Re Ipagoo LLP, the court provided welcome clarity on the status of e-money holders’ claims under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMR). In brief, the Court of Appeal held that the EMR do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders. The court confirmed, however, that e-money holders will still enjoy priority status in respect of their e-money creditor claims (crucially) whether or not their funds have been duly segregated from the general pool of assets, as required under the EMR.

Ristorante Ltd t/a Bar Massimo v Zurich Insurance Plc [2021] EWHC 2538 (Ch)

This case is an example of where an insurer alleged that the insured had not complied with the duty of fair presentation introduced by the Insurance Act 2015 and used the insured’s failure to disclose the past involvement of its directors in insolvent companies as a reason to refuse to pay out following a fire. However, the insurer was not successful because of the way in which the question that gave rise to the alleged non-disclosure was worded.

Background

Celebrated WWII leader, General George Patton, once said “Do not try to make circumstances fit your plans. Make plans that fit the circumstances.” Unfortunately, it’s advice that is not being fully heeded, according to the FCA’s latest thematic review on wind-down planning The FCA has concluded that “significant further work” is needed to ensure wind-down plans are credible and operable, and has urged all firms to ensure adequate procedures and resources (both financial and non-financial) are in place.

For the first time in England & Wales, a court has ordered the winding-up of a listed plc on the grounds of loss of substratum – the abandonment of the company's original main object and purpose. If Hong Kong follows this decision, it would be very welcome to minority shareholders who would have an additional option to retrieve their investment monies from companies that embark on a completely different path to that for which they initially signed up.