The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill was first read to Parliament on 20 May 2020. It is set to be fast tracked into legislation and will likely be law by 10 June 2020.

2018 was the "year of the CVA", slashing rents and forcing landlords to get to grips with long-winded CVA proposal documents in an attempt to allow struggling tenants to manage their debts, turn around their businesses and avoid terminal insolvency situations.

The unfortunate reality is that even if they are approved by landlords and other creditors, not all these CVAs will be successful and many tenants are likely to end up in administration.

Gowling WLG's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.

Single signature bank mandate binding on partnership

The High Court has recently considered whether a one signature bank mandate was sufficient to bind a partnership to various loan agreements.

This article was first published on the Practical Law website and in the PLC Magazine in June 2016.

Challenger banks, which are set up to compete with the larger traditional banks, have seen rapid growth in the wake of increased openness to change in the banking sector and a desire for more consumer choice. Their clever targeting of niche markets is opening up plenty of scope for growth. While this opportunity does not come without difficulties, the rewards for challenger banks that succeed can be considerable.

Where there is no evidence of lack of authority in placing orders which have not been paid, the court refused to allow an injunction to restrain a winding-up petition.

In the matter of A company (2012) (the company), a creditor had issued a statutory demand against it in relation to invoices for advertising placed with it by the company's sales and marketing manager (M) that were unpaid. The company argued that those orders had been placed without its authority and M admitted that she had exceeded her authority in so placing them.

This article was written by Greg Standing, partner in Wragge & Co LLP's finance, insolvency, recoveries and sales team and published in the July issue of Motor Finance.

When a claimant discontinues its claim, the usual position is that it has to pay the defendant's reasonable legal costs. This is the general presumption under the Civil Procedure Rules and applies unless there is good reason for it not to.

To avoid an asset reverting to a bankrupt after the end of his period of bankruptcy, the asset must be realised. An assignment of a beneficial interest for a future price does not amount to a realisation.

So long as there is no evidence of willful default or lack of reasonable diligence, failure to submit a claim form in time in relation to a CVA may not be fatal.

The company, through its receivers, brought and prosecuted an unsuccessful claim against the defendants. The claim was financed from funds subject to the receivers’ control but the receivers had no beneficial or personal interest in those funds or the outcome of the proceedings. The first defendant sought to recover his costs of the proceedings from the receivers from funds realised in the course of the receivership on the basis that they were the real claimants, and had conducted the proceedings for the benefit of themselves and the bank that had appointed them.

We have previously reported on the developing area of adjudication by insolvent companies, now the subject of another key judgment. In Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited and Astec Projects Limited (in liquidation) [2020] the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has provided a further clear example of the type of strict conditions that will need to be satisfied to enable such adjudications to proceed.