Dickinson v NAL (Realisations) Staffordshire Ltd is a useful case on how directors’ duties are looked at following a formal insolvency and ways in which an office holder can challenge transactions if there is evidence of wrongdoing or a concerted strategy to frustrate creditors’ recourse to a Company’s asset base which would ordinarily be available to them in an insolvency, subject of course to valid security and/or third party rights.
The UK Supreme Court has confirmed that an irrevocable agency will only be created in exceptional circumstances.
During 2020, many countries revamped their insolvency laws, introducing temporary or permanent measures to aid and assist companies in financial distress. Governments acted quickly to put in place measures that changed laws, relaxed or suspended legal obligations and introduced new provisions aimed at supporting businesses during the pandemic and avoiding large scale insolvencies.
The recent case of Manolete Partners Plc v Hayward and Barrett Holdings Ltd [2021] EWHC 1481 (Ch) impacts both insolvency practitioners and assignees of insolvency claims, potentially making such claims more expensive to bring and a procedural burden by requiring (depending on the nature of the pleaded claims) two sets of proceedings, even though the claims arise from the same facts.
The UK left the European Union (EU) on 31 January 2020 and the transition period in which EU rules continued to apply ended on 31 December 2020. As such, for insolvency proceedings opened in England after 31 December 2020, they will no longer benefit from automatic recognition in an EU member state.
Therefore, insolvency practitioners (IP) of a company with multijurisdictional operations or assets will be required to make an application in the relevant EU jurisdiction to have proceedings recognised in that jurisdiction.
While much of the focus of the insolvency and restructuring world has (rightly and understandably) been on the fundamental changes introduced under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, it is worth remembering that there have been major tax changes, too.
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.
The Insolvency Service has released statistics on the level of insolvencies in April 2020. This allows us to take a look at the immediate effect of insolvencies post-lockdown compared with those before.
Statistics
Over the weekend, the Business Secretary announced that UK Insolvency Laws will be changed.
The changes will give businesses “extra time to weather the storm” and give comfort to directors who, challenged with trading through a difficult cash flow period, will not face claims for wrongful trading.
Relaxation of wrongful trading provisions
The proposed measures alleviate concerns that borrowing additional funds offered by the Government could place a director at risk of personal liability.
The Government announced an independent review of HMRCs loan charge in September 2019. In this blog we consider the effect of the review on directors who have or are settling claims with HMRC and highlight that the review does not impact on potential claims against directors of insolvent businesses.
Regardless of the outcome of the review, employee benefit trusts (“EBT”) which are not legitimate, are still tax avoidance schemes.