As the measures in the UK designed to protect businesses from insolvency draw to an end, what guidance can be taken from Australia where similar measures ended a few months ago?

Today (16 June 2021) the UK governmentannounced a further extension of some (but not all) of the temporary measures first introduced by the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Act 2020 (CIGA) in June last year.

The two most significant temporary measures for companies facing financial difficulties as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic were:

CVA challenges have been in the spotlight recently and the story continues with Nero Holdings Ltd v Young in which the court considered an application to strike out a CVA challenge claim. Although there is nothing ground-breaking in the court’s reasoning to dismiss the strike out/summary judgment application, its detailed reasoning will offer some helpful guidance and assistance to those involved in these applications.

When finances become distressed, creditors examine all avenues to recover their debt which can result in any intercreditor agreements being thrown into the spotlight. The recent judgment of Re Arboretum Devon is another helpful reminder to lenders entering into an intercreditor agreement (ICA) that these should be drafted with the worst-case scenario in mind and using the clearest language in order to avoid disputes arising at the time of enforcement.

The suspension of wrongful trading under the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Act 2020 was introduced to allow directors to trade during the pandemic without the unwanted distraction of potential liability. This article considers whether that objective is likely to be achieved in circumstances where there has been no modification to the common law rules governing duties owed to creditors, and in light of the Court’s power to award compensation in disqualification proceedings.

Introduction

Section 284 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA86”) deals with the restrictions on a bankrupt in dealing with their property in the period between the making (practically speaking, the presentation) of a bankruptcy application and the vesting of the estate in the trustee. This period is defined as the “Relevant Period”. If a bankruptcy order is made, any disposition of property in the Relevant Period is automatically void. Any person in receipt of disposed property is treated as holding it on trust for the benefit of the bankrupt’s estate.

The High Court recently considered whether a creditor can be a victim to, and obtain relief for, a transaction which is reversed before the claim is even brought and the creditor is put back to the position they were in before the transaction took place.

Timeline

In this session, the panellists took up the challenge of predicting the post COVID future for directors, and the immediate challenges they will face as a result of the winding back of protections and support provided in 2020.

People get divorced for all sorts of reasons. What if the main reason for a divorce is to put assets beyond the reach of creditors? A quick divorce giving assets to the soon-to-be-ex spouse, followed by a declaration of bankruptcy can look incredibly suspicious, but if there’s a Court order granting the divorce and division of assets what can be done about it?

Transfer at an undervalue

The suggestion that the financially stronger party is at risk of bankruptcy is not a novel argument in financial proceedings following a divorce. In many cases, the threat of bankruptcy does not materialise and therefore has no bearing on the final outcome. In some, however, the risk of bankruptcy is used as an excuse for a breach of orders made in the family court and in the worst case scenario, the threat of bankruptcy can become a reality.