Report comment

Insolvency litigation is inherently riskier then any other form of litigation. This is the one are where if there is no recovery, you are not entitled to be paid, which does not apply in any other area of law. There is no 'pay come what may' in insolvency proceedings, and the risks involved in terms of both legal issues in defences, and once obtained the risk of non-recoverability of judgments, fully justifies the CFA exemption for insolvency matters. We will otherwise end up with directors misapplying funds with virtual impunity. Bear in mind that company directors are frequently better paid than most members of the public, they are in my experience as an insolvency solicitor for the last 20 years, amply able to find the money to fund expensive expert solicitors to defend their claims. Actions against directors and others in wrongful trading, preference, undervalue and misfeasance claims are taken in the insolvency practitioner's name and not those of the company; the costs risk of losing provides an ample check against unmeritorious claims being pursued. If we are being asked to receive payment only if we both win and recover, we will do so much less frequently if we cannot recover a premium from CFA's. The losers will be creditors, Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (a major creditor in most cases), and the government from the insolvency tax levied on Insolvency Services's account realisations.