Nathan has an extensive insolvency practice, as is reflected in him being a Tier 5 ranked leading insolvency junior in the Legal 500.

He is instructed on a wide range of corporate and personal insolvency matters and has experience of handling a broad range of insolvency applications, including misfeasance, antecedent transactions, conversions of administrations to compulsory liquidations, rescission and annulment applications, validation orders and applications seeking to restrain the presentation or advertisement of winding up petitions.

He is instructed by debtors, creditors and office holders and has a keen awareness of how the insolvency legislation can be used to the best advantage of each.

Recent notable cases have included:

• Successfully acting for a liquidator at the trial of a misfeasance application under s. 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) in respect of various breaches of directors’ duties.
• Drafting pleadings on behalf of and advising a liquidator in a similar misfeasance application which was settled prior to trial.
• Advising a CVA supervisor in respect of a number of charges entered into by a company, which required consideration of loan agreements, assignments and novations involving companies registered in the Seychelles and the BVI.
• Obtaining rescission and validation orders on behalf of a director in unusual circumstances where the money required to discharge the petition debt was located in the debtor company’s bank account.
• Acting on a number of successful administration applications, including applications involving pre-pack sales and one involving an LLP.
• Acting for office holders in obtaining orders for the winding up of companies in administration in the absence of winding up petitions, pursuant to paragraph 79 of Schedule B1 IA 1986.
• Acting for an EU based office holder in an application for relief under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006.
• Acting for administrators in obtaining retrospective administration orders in various circumstances including potentially defective out of hours appointments and an appointment made in breach of a company’s constitution.
• Acting for administrators in obtaining directions in circumstances where proposals to creditors had not been approved and the administrators had, in reliance on the so-called Parmeko exception (set out in Re Parmeko Holdings Ltd (In Administration) [2014] BCC 159), continued to pursue the statutory purpose of administration rather than making an application under paragraph 55 of Schedule B1 IA 1986.
• Appearing for a director in a successful application under s. 216 IA 1986 in respect of a prohibited name.
• Acting for a discharged bankrupt in obtaining permission to challenge the remuneration and expenses of his trustee in bankruptcy pursuant to Rule 18.35 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (“IR 2016”).
• Acting for office holders in remuneration applications under R. 18.23 IR 2016.
• Obtaining permission for a creditor to serve a bankruptcy petition on an individual in Spain shortly after the Brexit transition period came to an end.
• Appearing for trustees in bankruptcy in respect of applications for possession and sale under s. 335A IA 1986 and s. 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, and under s. 363 IA1986.
• Advising a liquidator on the merits of various potential claims against company directors, including transactions at an undervalue pursuant to s. 238 IA 1986, unjust enrichment and knowing receipt.
• Advising liquidators on issues relating to the potential rejection of a proof of debt.
• Acting for a creditor in respect of an appeal against the rejection of an alleged creditor’s proof of debt under R. 14.8(3) IR 2016.
• Advising liquidators on issues relating to a potentially defective set of proposals provided to creditors and the implications of the approval of those proposals.
• Successfully obtaining a permanent stay of winding up proceedings under s. 147 IA 1986.

Nathan enjoys the variety of contractual and other commercial disputes and has experience of acting for individuals, SMEs and larger businesses, so is well aware of the different issues which can be in play depending on the nature of the business and the need to tailor his advice and approach accordingly.

Recent notable cases have included:

• Acting for a high net worth individual in proceedings against his former solicitors concerning treatment of funds, involving claims for breach of contract, negligence and breach of trust.
• Acting for two companies providing services in the higher education sector in claims to recover sums from a further education institution.
• Credico Marketing Limited & Or v Lambert & Ors [2021] EWHC 1504 (QB). Led by Paul Casey of Fountain Court Chambers in acting for two defendants in the six-day trial of a claim involving the enforceability of restrictive covenants in the direct marketing industry.
• Advising a company on the merits of pursuing a number of economic tort claims against individuals.
• Advising LLP members on issues including the recovery of sums allegedly owed by the LLP to other members, on the legal status of a sum provided to the LLP by a third party and on matters relating to the LLP agreement and membership.
• Advising a public sector client on the merits of two overlapping and conflicting claims made against it by two separate third parties and the scope for a stakeholder claim under CPR Part 86.

Nathan’s expertise in insolvency and commercial law means that there are significant overlaps with other areas of law, including particularly company law. In advising on company law matters he is able to draw on his wide experience in other areas to ensure that all potential issues are identified and addressed, whether or not litigation has been commenced.

Recent notable cases have included:

• Advising a CVA supervisor on the validity of charges entered into by a company.
• Advising the directors of a company in respect of, among other things, the validity of a sale of shares in a company.
• Successfully obtaining a retrospective administration order where the original appointment was defective in not complying with the company’s constitution.
• Advising on the applicability of the Duomatic principle in the context of amendments to a company’s articles of association.
• Advising on the consequences for shareholders resulting from the restructuring of an SME.
• Advising members of an LLP on various issues including the interpretation of an LLP agreement.

Nathan has acted on a number of professional negligence cases involving solicitors, IFAs and company directors.

Recent notable cases have included:

• Acting for a high net worth individual in proceedings against his former solicitors concerning treatment of funds.
• Acting for liquidators in misfeasance applications including, among other things, alleged breaches of the duty of care under s.174 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
• Advising a leading legal expense insurer in respect of, among other things, a claim brought by liquidators against a firm of solicitors concerning allegedly negligent advice given to a company director.

Nathan is experienced in dealing with interim injunctions, particularly where there is an insolvency angle, such as applications to restrain notice or advertisement of winding up petitions.

He has also assisted in freezing order applications and general private law injunctions involving prohibitory and mandatory injunctions as elements of final relief, such as in the context of residential easements.

• LLM, University College London
• MA (Cantab) Law, Churchill College, Cambridge

• Best Individual Oralist, Price Media Law Moot Court Competition, 2012

• Cambridge University Law Society, Master of Moots, 2010-2011

• Chancery Bar Association

• R3 Association of Business Recovery Professionals

‘Politicians, beware the investigative journalist: Tim Yeo v Times Newspapers Limited’ [2016] Ent LR 27(2), 74-75

‘Unexpected, illogical and unfair: the distinction between who can and who cannot sue for breaches of financial services rules’ [2017] BJIB & FL 32(9), 548-550

‘Getting consumer rights right’ [2017] NLJ 167, 13-14

‘Section 21 Notices and the Requirement to Provide a Gas Safety Certificate’ [2019] L & T Review, 23(6), 220-223’