Ever since the formation of limited companies became permissible, unsecured creditors have faced a Sisyphean struggle to regularly recover substantial levels of the debts owed to them should corporate creditors enter insolvency. These low recovery rates result in many issues for lenders, including large losses, and in some cases, the insolvency of the lender themselves.
The causes of these low return rates are long established and clearly demarcated. They consist of the existence and widespread use of security interests - which remove the majority of the company’s assets upon insolvency occurring - and the statutory priority of distribution, which ensures that parties other than the unsecured creditors have their debts discharged first by the liquidator from the already insufficiently resourced asset pool.
English insolvency law has sought to provide some protection to the unsecured creditors through the anti-deprivation and personal liability provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986, which are intended to protect the integrity of the insolvent company’s asset pool. However, as concluded by this thesis, these provisions fail to afford adequate protection as a consequence of their substantive, evidential and remedial limitations, potentially resulting in the distributable assets being misappropriated and out of the reach of unsecured creditors.
This thesis therefore analyses the limitations of the existing anti-deprivation and personal liability provisions before concluding as to how and why they fail to adequately protect unsecured creditors. This is done through a doctrinal and theoretical analysis of the provisions, before these conclusions are then tested empirically in two case studies.
Given the inadequate protection provided by the Insolvency Act, this thesis then analyses the resulting trust – on which little analysis has been conducted in the context of insolvency – to determine whether it is capable of assisting unsecured creditors to increase their liquidation return rates. This increase is achieved through returning assets beneficially owned by the company to the company, or by preventing parties from becoming unsecured creditors in the first place by removing assets beneficially owned by them from the company. This analysis too will adopt a doctrinal and theoretical methodology, and it is concluded that the resulting trust is able to assist should the requisite factual matrices occur
