Contentious Insolvency Developments

Official statistics · August 2026 · Released 18 September 2026

Company insolvencies in August 2026: broadly steady overall

The Insolvency Service reported 1,946 company insolvencies in England and Wales in August 2026, close to July’s 1,934 and 3% below August 2025.

Total company insolvencies

1,946

Creditors’ voluntary liquidations

1,431

Compulsory liquidations

314

Administrations

182

Company voluntary arrangements

19

Official reported figures. There were no receivership appointments. Administrations were 44% higher than in July, although the Service notes volatility between March and August 2026 associated with more than 250 connected real-estate companies entering administration over that period. The 12-month rolling insolvency rate to 31 August 2026 was 50.1 per 10,000 companies, compared with 52.5 for the equivalent period a year earlier.

Definitions and limits. Solvent members’ voluntary liquidations and dissolutions are excluded. These figures concern England and Wales; the release presents Scotland and Northern Ireland separately. The figures are provisional and subject to review. Compulsory liquidations, creditors’ voluntary liquidations and administrations are seasonally adjusted; company voluntary arrangements are not. Monthly totals do not establish why any particular company entered insolvency.

Government source: Insolvency Service, Company insolvencies, August 2026 · official commentary, definitions and data tables.

Longer judgment analysis · Judgment 24 November 2025

When later events affect the value of misappropriated shares

In Mitchell and another (Joint Liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc) v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber [2025] UKSC 43, the Supreme Court reinstated an award of equitable compensation arising from the transfer of shares out of a BVI company in liquidation.

The dispute

The liquidators pursued claims arising from the transfer of shares that MBI owned in another BVI company. The courts below found that the former director, Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber, had dishonestly brought about their transfer after MBI entered liquidation. The trial judge awarded €67,123,403.36. The Court of Appeal reduced the award to zero, reasoning that a later transfer of assets and liabilities had rendered the shares worthless.

What the Court decided

The Supreme Court dismissed the Sheikh’s appeal on the fiduciary duty and unpaid vendor lien issues, allowed the liquidators’ appeal on loss and reinstated the trial judge’s compensation order. It rejected a fixed rule that the shares had to be valued at trial. MBI had lost the value of its ownership when the shares were misappropriated. A later group restructuring made the shares worthless, but the fiduciary had not shown that this was an event he could invoke to reduce the company’s loss.

Why the counterfactual mattered

The Sheikh argued that the 2017 asset and liability transfer would have made the shares worthless even if MBI had retained them. Once the misappropriation and value of the shares were established, he bore the burden of showing that the later event should reduce the loss attributable to his breach. His involvement in the group restructuring called for an explanation and disclosure that he did not provide. The separate conspiracy claim about the 2017 transaction had been rejected at trial; the Supreme Court did not reverse that finding.

Analysis

For office-holders and their advisers, ownership, control and value through successive group transactions can determine the remedy. A fiduciary seeking credit for a later event needs evidence that it is properly taken into account when assessing causation. Independent intervening events may matter. This decision does not require breach-date valuation in every fiduciary claim; it turns on the shares, transactions, burden of proof and evidence in this case.

Primary judgment: UK Supreme Court, full judgment · Official press summary.

Concise judgment note · Judgment 7 May 2025

Fraudulent trading liability extends beyond company management

Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2025] UKSC 18 addresses who may be liable under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and a separate limitation question concerning companies restored to the register.

The decision

The Supreme Court dismissed Tradition’s appeal. Section 213 is not confined to a company’s directors or managers: an outsider can fall within it if knowingly party to carrying on the company’s business for a fraudulent purpose. The Court also dismissed the restored companies’ appeals on limitation. Dissolution did not, by itself, establish that the alleged fraud could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence for the purposes of section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980.

Practical significance and limit

Knowing involvement in the company’s fraudulent business is required. Mere failure to advise, or association with a single transaction, is insufficient without more. For restored companies, reasonable diligence cannot be assessed simply by pointing to their period of non-existence. The ruling matters to claims involving brokers and other counterparties, and to limitation assessments after restoration.

Procedural limit: the Supreme Court decided the legal questions on assumed disputed facts. It did not decide that Tradition knowingly participated in fraudulent trading or determine the ultimate merits of the claims.

Primary judgment: UK Supreme Court, full judgment · Official case record.