Online free quote
enquiries@fosters-solicitors.co.uk
01603 620508
Insolvency disputes arise when companies face financial distress and stakeholders disagree about asset recovery, director conduct, or creditor priorities during liquidation or administration proceedings. Professional legal representation is essential for navigating complex insolvency legislation and protecting stakeholder interests in these contentious matters. Business Disputes Solicitors provide expert guidance for creditors, directors, shareholders, and insolvency practitioners facing disputes during corporate insolvency proceedings.
Insolvency disputes encompass a wide range of legal challenges that emerge when businesses become unable to pay their debts. These conflicts often involve asset recovery claims, challenges to director conduct, disputes between creditors about priority rights, and disagreements about the administration of insolvent estates. Understanding the legal framework governing insolvency processes and the rights and duties of different stakeholders is crucial for achieving successful outcomes in these complex proceedings.
Insolvency disputes frequently involve claims against directors for wrongful trading, fraudulent trading, or breaches of fiduciary duty that have reduced the company’s assets available to creditors. Wrongful trading claims arise when directors continue operating a business when they knew or ought to have known there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation. These insolvency disputes can result in personal liability for company debts incurred after the relevant date.
Asset recovery claims in insolvency disputes play a crucial role in maximising returns to creditors by reversing certain transactions entered into prior to insolvency. These claims include challenges to transactions at undervalue, preference payments, and floating charges created within specified periods before insolvency. The Insolvency Act 1986 provides liquidators and administrators with powers to recover assets improperly disposed of before insolvency, helping maximise distributions to creditors.
Creditor disputes emerge when stakeholders disagree about priority rights, the validity of securities and the conduct of insolvency proceedings. These insolvency disputes may involve challenges to the appointment of insolvency practitioners, disagreements about asset valuations, or conflicts between secured and unsecured creditors about distribution priorities. Professional legal advice helps creditors understand their rights and pursue appropriate remedies.
Insolvency disputes involving director liability require careful analysis of conduct before and during the company’s financial difficulties. Directors owe fiduciary duties to act in the company’s best interests, and these duties shift towards creditor interests as insolvency approaches. Breach of these duties can result in personal liability through misfeasance claims brought by liquidators or administrators.
Fraudulent trading claims are among the most serious category of director liability in insolvency disputes, requiring proof that business was carried on with intent to defraud creditors or for a fraudulent purpose. These claims can result in unlimited personal liability for company debts and potential disqualification from acting as a director. The high evidential burden for proving fraudulent intent makes these among the most complex insolvency disputes to pursue.
Disqualification proceedings may accompany insolvency disputes where directors are found to be unfit to be concerned in company management. The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 allows courts to disqualify directors for up to 15 years based on their conduct before, during, or after insolvency. These proceedings can significantly impact individuals’ ability to conduct business in the future.
Asset recovery forms a crucial element of insolvency disputes, helping maximise returns to creditors by recovering improperly transferred assets. Transactions at undervalue involve disposals of company property for significantly less than its value, typically to connected parties such as directors or shareholders. These insolvency disputes allow liquidators to recover the difference between actual consideration and proper value.
Preference claims target payments, securities or other benefits granted to creditors within specified periods before insolvency that place them in a better position than they would have been in liquidation. Insolvency disputes involving preferences require proving the company was influenced by a desire to prefer the recipient, making these among the most fact-sensitive asset recovery claims.
Floating charge challenges arise when security created within 12 months before insolvency may be invalid except to the extent of new consideration provided. These insolvency disputes often involve complex analysis of refinancing arrangements and the timing of security creation. Successful challenges can significantly increase funds available for unsecured creditors.
Insolvency disputes frequently involve disagreements about creditor priorities and the validity of security interests claimed by different parties. Fixed charges over specific assets rank first in distribution hierarchies, followed by expenses of insolvency proceedings, preferential creditors, floating charges, and finally unsecured creditors. Disputes about charge characterisation can dramatically affect recovery prospects.
Set-off rights enable creditors to offset mutual debts with an insolvent company, potentially improving their position in insolvency proceedings. Insolvency disputes may arise where parties disagree about the availability or extent of set-off rights, particularly in complex trading relationships with multiple transactions. Professional legal advice helps creditors maximise their recovery through proper assertion of set-off claims.
Retention of title disputes emerge when suppliers claim ownership of goods supplied but not yet paid for. These insolvency disputes require careful analysis of contractual terms and compliance with statutory requirements for effective retention of title clauses. Successful claims can allow suppliers to recover goods rather than ranking as unsecured creditors.
Insolvency disputes may arise concerning the conduct, remuneration, or decisions of appointed liquidators, administrators, or receivers. Creditors can challenge appointments where conflicts of interest exist or where the practitioner lacks appropriate qualifications or experience. These challenges must be brought promptly and require substantial grounds to succeed.
Remuneration disputes involve challenges to the basis or level of fees claimed by insolvency practitioners. The Insolvency Rules provide detailed provisions for fee approval and challenge procedures. These insolvency disputes often require expert evidence about reasonable fee levels for comparable cases and the value delivered by the practitioner’s work.
Conduct complaints may be pursued through professional regulatory bodies or court applications where insolvency practitioners breach professional standards or fail to fulfil their statutory duties. These insolvency disputes can result in reduced fees, replacement of practitioners, or professional sanctions. Creditors should obtain legal advice before pursuing conduct complaints to understand available remedies and the evidential threshold required to succeed.
When a company goes bankrupt across more than one country, resolving the situation becomes more complicated. Different countries have their own laws, and courts and insolvency practitioners need to agree on who has authority and how to handle the company’s assets. The Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 put into UK law the UNCITRAL Model Law, which provides frameworks for cooperation in international cases. These provisions help resolve disputes about asset recovery across multiple jurisdictions.
Recognition of foreign proceedings enables overseas insolvency representatives to pursue asset recovery in England and Wales. Insolvency disputes may arise about the scope of recognition orders and the powers available to foreign representatives. Professional legal advice helps navigate these complex international procedures and protect stakeholder interests.
Centre of main interests (COMI) disputes determine which jurisdiction has primary responsibility for insolvency proceedings. These insolvency disputes affect creditor rights, applicable law, and distribution priorities. Recent cases have clarified COMI principles, but complex multinational structures can still generate significant jurisdictional disputes.
Consider a construction company that continued trading for six months after becoming unable to pay suppliers, incurring additional debts of £500,000 during this period. The liquidator investigates potential insolvency disputes against the directors, gathering evidence of their knowledge about the company’s financial position and any intent to defraud creditors through continued trading.
The investigation reveals that directors continued accepting new contracts despite knowing the company could not complete them profitably, used customer deposits to pay existing creditors, and made preferential payments to connected companies. These insolvency disputes involve complex factual and legal analysis of director conduct and the timing of various transactions.
Resolution of the insolvency disputes involves negotiating settlements with directors for personal liability, pursuing asset recovery claims against connected parties, and maximising recoveries for creditors. The liquidator must balance litigation costs against recovery prospects whilst ensuring proper investigation of potential claims to fulfil their duties to creditors.
Our specialist Litigation & Dispute Resolution team are vastly experienced in acting for a range of businesses in all types of commercial dispute. We provide support when you need it most. Dedicated to finding cost-effective commercial solutions for your business, we focus on your preferred outcome.
Contact us for more information.
Insolvency disputes are legal conflicts that arise when a company is facing financial distress or liquidation. They can involve asset recovery claims, director liability issues, creditor priority disagreements, and challenges to the conduct of insolvency practitioners. These disputes require specialist legal expertise to navigate complex insolvency legislation.
Yes, directors can face personal liability through wrongful trading, fraudulent trading, or misfeasance claims if they breach their duties to the company or creditors. Insolvency disputes involving director liability can result in substantial personal financial exposure and potential disqualification from acting as a director.
Insolvency disputes vary significantly in duration depending on complexity, the number of parties involved, and whether matters settle or proceed to trial. Simple asset recovery claims may resolve within months, whilst complex director liability cases can take several years to conclude through litigation.
Costs depend on case complexity, number of parties involved and resolution method. In some cases, insolvency disputes may be eligible to be pursued through Conditional Fee Arrangements with After the Event insurance, allowing claims to be pursued without upfront legal costs. In appropriate cases, litigation funding may be available from third-party funders.
Many insolvency disputes settle through negotiation or mediation, avoiding the costs and risks of litigation. Early engagement between parties and their legal representatives often leads to commercial settlements that maximise recoveries whilst minimising professional costs and delay.
| Claim Type | Time Limit | Potential Recovery |
|---|---|---|
| Wrongful trading | No fixed statutory limit | Post-insolvency debts |
| Transactions at undervalue | 2-5 years before insolvency | Full value of transaction |
| Preference payments | 6-24 months before insolvency | Preference amount |
| Fraudulent trading | No fixed statutory limit | Unlimited liability |
| Floating charge challenges | 12 months before insolvency | Security value |
This article was produced on the 24th November 2025 for information purposes only and should not be construed or relied upon as specific legal advice.
