Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Maxwell's pounds 406m is bankruptcy record

Roger Trapp
Thursday 03 September 1992 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

KEVIN MAXWELL yesterday became Britain's biggest bankrupt. The pounds 406.5m High Court bankruptcy order far exceeds the previous highest - pounds 118m against William Stern, the property developer, in 1974, writes Roger Trapp.

Mr Maxwell said outside the court that he stood there with 'a degree of humility'. He added: 'Bankruptcy is a very public humbling.'

The order was sought by the liquidators of Bishopsgate Investment Management, the Maxwell company that managed hundreds of millions of pounds of missing pension fund money. In July a summary judgment for his alleged breach of duty as a director of Bishopsgate ordered him to pay pounds 406.5m in damages for the benefit of the Maxwell pensioners.

In the coming months, Mr Maxwell will miss many things he has taken for granted. He will be unable to obtain more than pounds 250 of credit without disclosing his bankruptcy. Nor may he be involved in the setting up or running of a company without the court's permission.

(Photograph omitted)

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in