Claims by an insolvent estate or its insolvency office-holder

Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis

Litigation in insolvency

Litigation in insolvency proceedings is extremely common. The type of litigation will depend on the insolvency process as well as the functions and powers of the relevant insolvency office-holder. In this regard, it is more common for a liquidator to bring proceedings on behalf of an insolvent company than an administrator.

In addition to adversarial proceedings (such as antecedent claims and claims against directors) insolvency office-holders can also make application to court for directions on issues that may arise during the insolvency process and administrative matters (such as an application to extend the term of an administration).

This subtopic only considers adversarial proceedings and assumes that the insolvency office-holder has not assigned the claim (where otherwise entitled to do so).

Prior to the issue of proceedings

A key consideration for the insolvency office-holder is whether they have the power to issue the proposed proceedings. This will depend on the type of proceeding and the relevant insolvency process. For example, an administrator can only bring a wrongful trading claim or fraudulent trading claim where the conduct giving rise to the claim occurred

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

Insolvency Service forces fraudulent online pet supply company to cease all operations

The Insolvency Services has reported the shut down of Funnyfuzzy UK Co.Ltd for providing its customers with inferior and defective pet supplies. Following the Insolvency Service's investigation, it was revealed that the company had been misleading its customers by providing them with second-rate merchandise; failing to deliver ordered items; and refusing to issue refunds while lodging fabricated dormant accounts and evading VAT registration.

Directors’ liability for company’s debts under section 217 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and rule 22.17 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 (Maxima v Fealy and Barrett)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court has dismissed a claim brought by an assignee of creditors' debts against individuals who were directors of a company in liquidation and a second company which was operating under a prohibited name pursuant to section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). The defendants successfully argued that the second company fell within ‘The Third Excepted Case’ under the Insolvency Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, r 22.7, and that the second company had been known by its name for the entire 12 months prior to the first company's liquidation and had not at any time in those 12 months been dormant. The case is thought to be the only reported case on the true meaning and effect of the second of the two elements of The Third Excepted Case and demonstrates that the principles of corporate accounting law on non-dormancy cannot be translated from an accounting to an insolvency scenario. The concept of phoenix syndrome and the principle against doubtful penalisation were also considered. Written by Laura Newbery, legal director at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

Top UK court rejects Bedzhamov Russian bankruptcy order

Law360, London: The UK Supreme Court refused on 20 November 2024 to recognise a Russian bankruptcy order against two properties owned by banker Georgy Ivanovich Bedzhamov in Britain, confirming a legal principle that foreign courts do not have jurisdiction over English land.

Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week's edition of Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights includes: confirmation by the Supreme Court of the immovables rule to English property (Kireeva v Bedzhamov), the publication by the Insolvency Service of its monthly insolvency statistics for October 2024, an analysis on the interface between property law and financial remedy in the context of bankruptcy (DDR v BDR), plus a round-up of other news and cases for restructuring and insolvency professionals.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Transactions defrauding creditors—claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Transactions defrauding creditors—claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) allows for the avoidance of transactions which were designed to defraud creditors. Its provisions are intended to prevent debtors from disposing of assets so as to

Cayman Islands—just and equitable petition stayed pending arbitration (FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Privy Council held that a just and equitable winding-up petition by a minority shareholder in a Cayman Islands company, alleging a loss of trust and confidence in the majority shareholder and the management of the company's affairs, and an irretrievable

Rule 1.35(2)(b) of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 states that an

Rule 1.35(2)(b) of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 states that an application notice must state the section of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) or paragraph of a Schedule to the IA 1986 or the number of the IR 2016 rule under which it is made. What are the

Misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986What is misfeasance?A claim under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) operates where a person caught by the section has:•misapplied, retained or become accountable for any money or other property of the company•breached any
Transactions defrauding creditors—claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Transactions defrauding creditors—claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Transactions defrauding creditors—claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) allows for the avoidance of transactions which were designed to defraud creditors. Its provisions are intended to prevent debtors from disposing of assets so as to

Cayman Islands—just and equitable petition stayed pending arbitration (FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v

Cayman Islands—just and equitable petition stayed pending arbitration (FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Privy Council held that a just and equitable winding-up petition by a minority shareholder in a Cayman Islands company, alleging a loss of trust and confidence in the majority shareholder and the management of the company's affairs, and an irretrievable

Rule 1.35(2)(b) of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 states that an

Rule 1.35(2)(b) of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 states that an

Rule 1.35(2)(b) of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 states that an application notice must state the section of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) or paragraph of a Schedule to the IA 1986 or the number of the IR 2016 rule under which it is made. What are the

Misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986What is misfeasance?A claim under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) operates where a person caught by the section has:•misapplied, retained or become accountable for any money or other property of the company•breached any