Suppliers are now prevented from terminating many contracts and supplies of goods or services if the customer is subject to a ‘relevant insolvency procedure’ (such as going into administration, CVA, or appointing a provisional liquidator).

This follows the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, which came into force on 26 June. Although Coronavirus has accelerated the passing of the Act, these are set to be permanent changes.

What can’t suppliers do?*

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 came into force on 26 June bringing in measures to alleviate the burden on businesses during the Covid-19 pandemic and allow directors to focus their efforts on continuing to operate. In this article we consider the temporary changes to the wrongful trading regime and other key changes introduced by the Act.

Temporary wrongful trading relaxation

The first tentative steps are now being taken to ease the lockdown restrictions imposed on the nation as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and thoughts are turning to how we can return to “normal”. The construction sector is no exception but finds itself in a slightly different position to many businesses as sites were never required to close (provided that work could carry on “safely”). Nevertheless the impact of COVID-19 has wreaked havoc on the finances of the construction sector and the viability of current and future projects.

On 20 May 2020, the Government introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill in Parliament. The Bill is a much awaited development following the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s statement on 28 March 2020 announcing key measures to help businesses address the challenges resulting from the impact of coronavirus.

Financial services firms subject to special insolvency regimes supervised by the FCA, PRA, and other financial services regulators have been largely excluded by the Bill.

Rio de Janeiro-based Oi SA, Brazil’s fourth-largest telecom company, filed on Monday 20 June 2016 the largest judicial reorganisation petition in Brazil’s history, days after debt restructuring talks with creditors collapsed. The filing of Oi and six subsidiaries lists 65.4 billion reais ($19.26 billion) in debt. The company also filed for Chapter 15 protection in the U.S. on Tuesday.

On 20 June 2016, Rio de Janeiro-based Oi SA, Brazil’s fourth-largest telecom company, filed the largest judicial reorganisation petition in Brazil’s history, days after debt restructuring talks with creditors collapsed. The filing of Oi and six subsidiaries lists 65.4 billion reais (USD19.26 billion) in debt. The company has also filed for Chapter 15 protection in the U.S.  As from the date of filing the accrual of interests, penalties, monetary correction and late charges are suspended and will only become enforceable if the judicial reorganisation becomes a bankruptcy.

El 20 de junio de 2016 Oi SA, la cuarta empresa brasileña de telecomunicaciones, con sede en Río de Janeiro, presentó la solicitud de reorganización judicial más grande en la historia de Brasil, tras el colapso de negociaciones con acreedores para reestructurar deuda. La solicitud de Oi y sus seis subsidiarias comprenden en total una deuda de 65.4 billones de reales (USD19.26 billones). La empresa también solicitó la protección Chapter 15 en los EE.UU.

Businesses are currently facing unprecedented challenges. DAC Beachcroft is advising the NHS on covid-19 issues, as well as many corporate clients on the business issues arising out of the pandemic, particularly in relation to employees, insurance, continuity and cyber security.

In this case the High Court had to consider the mutual recognition provision in the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") and the Winding Up Directive for Banks (WUD) which provide for how the insolvency of EEA banks should be managed by member states.

This case highlights the different tensions that arise in the aftermath of the collapse of Banco Espirito Santo ("BES") between how creditors are treated under the BRRD and WUD and the flexibility given to central banks to restructure good and bad debts when a bank fails.

As Insurers underwriting risks in Spain are aware, the recent financial crisis resulted in a significant increase in claims against directors by trustees appointed when a company enters into an insolvency process. Insolvency proceedings in Spain reach a determination as to the culpability of directors implicated in the company's demise. In this context, the Spanish courts will look at whether the directors were "guilty" or whether the insolvency was "fortuitous". However, not all determinations will express whether the director's conduct was in bad faith or wilful.