Companies House temporarily paused their strike off processes in April 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The effect of this was to stay all strike off action. The stay was lifted on 10 October 2020 but stayed for a second time on 21 January 2021.
The second stay was lifted on 8 March 2021 and, absent further significant disruption caused by COVID-19, is unlikely to be subject to a further stay.
In Sarjanda Ltd (in liquidation) v Aluminium Eco Solutions Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 210 (Ch), an application to rescind a winding up order was refused where the application had been made over two years outside of the five-day time limit. That level of delay, allegedly caused by the company negotiating payment of its debts, was not a good enough reason for the breach of the time limit.
Practitioners are likely to be familiar with the provisions of The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA 2020”) which introduced new permanent measures to complement the insolvency regime as well as a number of temporary measures to support business dealing with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The recent case of Official Receiver v Deuss [2021] EWHC 1842 (Ch) provides legal and insolvency practitioners with guidance as to the test to be applied when considering whether a third-party costs order should be made against a liquidator who takes steps against an alleged de facto director of the company in liquidation. In this case, the step concerned was an application for public examination pursuant to section 133(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Section 133 Application).
Introduction
The UK Supreme Court has today handed down a significant and highly anticipated decision on the interpretation of liquidated damages clauses.
An interview with Mark Byers, Partner and Head of Strategic Relationships, Grant Thornton
What insolvency trends were you seeing before the pandemic?
In this edition of the Going concerns, our Stephenson Harwood restructuring and insolvency team provides a brief update on the newest developments in Singapore, UK and Hong Kong. For Singapore, we update on the "conflict" between the admiralty and insolvency regimes while our London team provides an update on the cutting-edge Part 26A restructuring plans. Last but certainly not least, our Hong Kong team dissects and discusses the significance and impact of the new cooperation mechanism for Hong Kong liquidators and Mainland administrators to seek mutual recognition and assistance.
A recent decision has got the funding community talking and would, if times were different, have led to some water cooler moments. The decision is a mere 19 paragraphs long and, as will become evident, is perhaps as important for what it did not say as for what it did say.
On 28 June 2021, Zacaroli J declined to sanction a restructuring plan (the “Plan”) in respect of Hurricane Energy PLC (the “Company”) under section 901F of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”). The Company is part of a group whose business is extracting oil stored within fractures in solid rock beneath the sea.
Following our previous alert that considered rent reductions and modifications to lease terms post New Look and Regis, this alert considers what those CVA challenge cases tell landlords about calculating a landlord's claim for voting purposes and the disclosure requirements.