A number of recent extensions and changes to temporary measures have been announced that impact insolvency practice and procedure, what are they?
Causer v All Star Leisure (Group) Ltd [2019] EWHC 3231 (Ch) (Causer) is yet another case which highlights the issues that e-filing can cause for practitioners when using the system to appoint administrators.
The decision in Causer followed Skeggs Beef in concluding that whilst the appointment of an administrator by a QFCH out of hours using the e-filing system is defective it is a defect capable of remedy. The case is nevertheless worthy of note because:
Directors of a company in financial distress will often turn to their professional advisors to assist in making decisions about the company’s future; whether that be their lawyers, accountants, bank, tax advisors or insolvency professionals.
The Finance Act 2020 received Royal Assent today (22 July), confirming the anticipated but opposed intention to restore HMRC as a secondary preferential creditor on insolvency.
From 1 December 2020 HMRC’s claim will sit ahead of floating charge holders and unsecured creditors reducing the monies available for distribution to both when a corporate files for insolvency.
In this three part blog we highlight three recent court decisions concerning landlord rights and insolvency, which provide cautionary warnings and surprising twists. The questions we consider are:
- Does a company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) permanently vary the terms of a lease?
- Can a landlord be forced to accept a surrender of a lease?
- What are the consequences of taking money from a rent deposit if the tenant company is in administration?
In part 1 we consider the first question.
The perceived costs of proposing a restructuring plan are seen to be the biggest inhibitors to using the process for SMEs. It is still a relatively new tool and insolvency practitioners, lawyers and the courts are still grappling with it, but as we have seen recently in Amigo Loans it can provide creative and innovative restructuring solutions[1].
On 25 June 2020 the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act received Royal Assent, making some of the biggest changes to UK insolvency laws in the last 30 years. We have written several blogs covering the changes and how they help support distressed businesses, impact suppliers, lenders and other third parties and have tracked the changes through the UK parliament.
Dealing with pensions in insolvency can be challenging for insolvency practitioners (“IPs”) and the Pension Scheme Bill (“Bill”) presents another.
Whilst a prudent insolvent practitioner should not be unduly alarmed, s114 of the Bill inserts a new section 80B into the Pensions Act 2004 which gives the Pensions Regulator (tPR) power to issue insolvency practitioners with a fine of up to £1 million.
A significant amount, and payable personally!
It is often the case, that insolvency claims are pursued against former directors of the insolvent company or persons connected to them. It is also often the case, that such claims are assigned to a litigation funding company given lack of funds in the insolvent estate to pursue them. This is what happened in Lock v Stanley where various claims against the former directors, their parents and connected company were assigned to Manolete.
As set out in the first blog in this series, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) introduces a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern.