Today, new legislation comes into force* that provides directors of companies in financial difficulty with a second breathing space from the financial impact of the wrongful trading provisions.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduces a temporary, retrospective suspension of the directors' personal financial liability for wrongful trading from 1 March 2020 until 30 September 2020. This is not a blanket defence to a breach of duty by directors, since the directors' general duties to act in the best interests of the company (or, on insolvency, its creditors),will continue to apply.

In the recent decision in LBI EHF v. Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719, the Court of Appeal has considered the close-out valuation provisions for "repo" trades entered into under a Global Master Repurchase Agreement (2000 edition). The court refused to limit the wide discretion given to a non-defaulting party to determine fair market value under the GMRA.

The factual background

The Great Brexit Debate dentons.com Introduction The UK is now counting down to the 23 June 2016 referendum on whether to stay in or leave the European Union. Dentons summarises the background to this momentous choice, and takes a deeper look at some of the legal issues involved in some key areas that would be impacted by a vote to leave the EU.

CLLS responds on bail-in: CLLS' financial and insolvency law committees have responded to Treasury's consultation on the implementation of bail-in powers. CLLS feels it would have been better for the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 and relevant secondary legislation to have been promulgated only once the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) was final. However, it appears the UK Government does not want to wait until January 2016 to apply bail-in requirements and so is proceeding ahead of the EU timetable.

BBA has published a briefing paper setting out its position on the Commission’s proposal for a bank recovery and resolution directive. It suggests that certain powers, such as appointing a Special Manager or requiring a plan for debt restructuring, are more akin to resolution tools and should not be used until the firm has reached its point of non-viability. This also applies to the bail-in tool, which cannot be used as the first or default option.

The Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the anti-deprivation principle, in Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited (respondent) v. BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (appellant) [2011] UKSC 38 (Belmont). Understanding the scope of this principle is important for anyone entering a contract where the parties’ rights and obligations change if one of them enters an insolvency procedure. Robert Spedding explains how the courts applied the principle in Belmont and makes some practical suggestions for avoiding problems.

Following proposals Treasury made at the end of 2009, it has now published for consultation draft regulations setting up a special resolution regime for investment banks. The regime will apply to firms that meet all of the following three conditions:

OFT is monitoring the lending and broking of secured loans to consumers where the loan's purpose is to annul a recent bankruptcy. It is asking for comments by 30 October from any consumers who have taken this type of loan.

On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Act) came into force with changes to insolvency law to help businesses manage the economic implications of Covid-19. The new Act’s permanent measure on continuing supply stands out for the construction industry.