With the news that the Arcadia Group has entered administration, suppliers of goods and services are left with a number of questions: what happens next, and can they still get paid? The answers to such issues have recently been drastically altered by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA) 2020. Its impact is discussed in the eight key points considered below.

What would happen in ‘normal’ circumstances? A manageable problem

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.

On 28 March 2020, business secretary Alok Sharma announced plans to reform insolvency law to add new restructuring tools, including:

The Chancellor has committed to doing “whatever it takes” to save businesses and workers and, as part of a raft of measures, has pledged to pay 80% of staff kept on by employers.

The raft of European and domestic litigation surrounding Mastercard fees has been long running and frankly, brain achingly complex. Hidden in the masses of litigation, the topic has sparked little interest in insolvency practitioners. However, it has the potential to generate realisations in liquidated estates where there may otherwise be nothing to offer creditors, and it warrants attention as a result.

When this topic was last considered two years ago, there was a real danger of pension rights (previously thought of as sacrosanct) being within the reach of trustees in bankruptcy by way of an income payments order (IPO). There were also two conflicting first instance decisions in play. The issue? Whether a pension entitlement capable of drawdown by election, but not yet in payment, can fall within the definition of income in section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86), and so be the potential subject of an IPO.

In a challenging economy bankruptcy increasingly stands accused of constituting a mechanism for debtors to escape their responsibilities at their creditors' expense. It understandably remains a live debate as to whether a bankrupt should be afforded the means of a protected pot of money for his future use while his creditors are left unrecompensed for their loss. The debate is not new, but the balance has perhaps shifted in a climate where creditor losses are felt particularly keenly.

In Re Mark Irwin Forstater [2015] BPIR, the petitioning creditor presented a bankruptcy petition against the debtor, Mr Forstater, on 13 June 2014. It first came before the court on 30 July 2014, when it was adjourned to allow the  debtor to take legal advice. At the adjourned hearing on 12 August 2014, the debtor indicated that he intended to pursue an IVA. The hearing was adjourned again to await the outcome of a meeting of creditors. The meeting of creditors was itself adjourned for 14 days from 1 September 2014 to 15 September 2014.

In our e-updates of 20 January 2010 and 16 August 2010, we looked at decisions of the English and Scottish courts from December 2009 and August 2010 in which it was decided that, in England and Scotland respectively, the Administrators of a tenant company are bound to account to the landlord of premises for rent due in relation to the period during which those premises are being u