As always, there has been a lot going on in insolvency.  We have highlighted below a few of the more important developments that we have seen in a very busy 2020 for insolvency lawyers. 

Re Tokenhouse VB Ltd (Formerly VAT Bridge 7 Ltd) [2020] EWHC 3171 (Ch)

The challenges facing the businesses of the United Kingdom at the start of 2021 are perhaps greater than any of us have seen in our lifetimes. In addition to the economic consequences of the restrictions on daily life imposed to counter Covid-19, we are now seeing the effects of the exit of the UK from the EU with businesses having had little time to get up to speed on the new regime.

I have obviously been a good boy this year because my gift from the Insolvency Service has arrived - the November 2020 Insolvency statistics. And like any properly brought up child, I decided to sneak a peek at my present before Christmas Day.

What the numbers show us is a continuation of the trend that the previous figures disclosed - corporate insolvencies remain markedly lower than the equivalent period last year. In Scotland in particular this is driven by a massive reduction in the number of compulsory liquidations this year (Nov 2019 - 56; Nov 2020 - 13).

Earlier this year the UK Government introduced a number of temporary measures intended to avoid large scale insolvencies across the country. One of these measures was the suspension of wrongful trading liability.

This suspension was in place until September 30, 2020. Most of the other temporary measures were extended (e.g. the effective suspension of winding up petitions by creditors has been extended until December 31, 2020) but the suspension of wrongful trading liability was not extended.

The Insolvency Service has released the latest insolvency statistics (to September 2020). 

These figures are particularly interesting as they shed light on the effects of the various changes to the insolvency landscape that have occurred since Covid-19 started to affect the economy.

Since March 2020, we have seen the introduction of the Corporate Insolvency & Governance Act ("CIGA"), Government schemes and lockdowns of various sizes, shapes and geographical restrictions. 

The statutory provisions for Restructuring Plans form a new Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. CIGA was brought into force on June 26, 2020 and at a hearing in the High Court in London on September 2, 2020, the plan proposed by Virgin Atlantic, which was the first to be brought before the courts, was sanctioned.

In Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a debt collector does not run afoul of the FDCPA by filing a proof of claim in bankruptcy on a stale debt.

In Dubois v. Atlas Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 15-1945 (4th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that filing proofs of claim on time-barred debts does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), at least where state law preserves the right to collect on the payment. In so holding, the court sided with the Second and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals in a circuit split regarding the viability of FDCPA claims premised on proofs of claim filed in a debtor’s bankruptcy case.

In Jenkins v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,^[1]the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that the filing of a proof of claim based on a time-barred debt cannot give rise to a claim for damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), reasoning that any such claim is precluded by the Bankruptcy Code’s comprehensive claims-allowance procedure.

In Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit became the first federal circuit court of appeals to hold that filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt in a bankruptcy case violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).[1] See No. 13-12389,__ F.3d __, 2014 WL 3361226 (11th Cir.