'Standard legal practice' is not strictly relevant as it is the liquidator who is responsible for instructing legal actions irrespective of (1) what the law says and (2) may be best for their creditors. The liquidators' motivations, shall I suggest, can vary! For example, unless the liquidator can get a solicitor to operate on a 'no win, no fee', why would they risk running out of cash to pay themselves and take on that risk of non-recovery (personal/commercial insolvency) from the legal target? Insolvency practitioners, in some scenarios can become personally liable.
I was slightly wrong, not a legal professional so needless to qualify this is not legal advice, but...
"Transactions at undervalue (s238) – A transaction at the time when the company is insolvent, or by which the company becomes insolvent, in which the company receives less than full value. This has a 2 year look back period for connected and unconnected persons. Additionally, there is an important presumption of insolvency at the time of the transaction where the beneficiary is a connected person."
There are other conditions under which reversal of transactions can be sought via the courts on the instruction's of the liquidators' legal agent.
Time limits in antecedent transactions, a forgotten past? (jmw.co.uk)