Our recent blog discussed the decision in Re Carluccio’s Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 88D (Ch) where the Court considered whether administrators would “adopt” the employment contracts of employees they furloughed after the 14 day grace period.
The High Court has delivered the first decision on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (the “Scheme”), in the context of the Carluccio’s administration.
As we have previously discussed (HERE), despite further clarification from HMRC over recent days, there remain some unanswered questions regarding the detailed operation of the Scheme, given that the Scheme’s exact legal framework has not been published.
Over the weekend, the Business Secretary announced that UK Insolvency Laws will be changed.
The changes will give businesses “extra time to weather the storm” and give comfort to directors who, challenged with trading through a difficult cash flow period, will not face claims for wrongful trading.
Relaxation of wrongful trading provisions
The proposed measures alleviate concerns that borrowing additional funds offered by the Government could place a director at risk of personal liability.
The ILA Technical Committee, in conjunction with the CLLS, has produced the attached briefing note that reminds practitioners and businesses of the flexibility of a UK administration to stabilise, protect, and, if necessary, restructure companies.
On 24 March 2020, the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020 received Royal Assent, meaning that the changes proposed in that bill to "lessen the threat of insolvency" for individuals and businesses in the current coronavirus pandemic have now become law. The changes will be in place for a period of six months starting from today and ending on 25 September 2020, unless this grace period is extended in the future.
By way of summary, the legislative changes involve the following measures:
On 4 February 2020, the Federal Court of Australia considered the circumstances in which it might be said that a provisional liquidator of a company ought not be appointed as the official liquidator because of an alleged "reasonable apprehension of bias". The issue was ventilated before the Court in the matter of Frisken (as receiver of Avant Garde Investments Pty Ltd v Cheema [2020] FCA 98.
Appointing a provisional liquidator
Entering into liquidation can be a scary time for any company and its officers, even one which chooses to do so voluntarily. However, the directors, shareholders and creditors of a company entering into liquidation do not have absolute discretion as to who they may appoint as the liquidator of the company. Together, the Corporations Act and common law principles of independence regulate the eligibility of a liquidator to be appointed to a company, and to remain in the appointment.
Overarching eligibility
Following on from our blog: Does e-filing give you a headache? Does the recent guidance issued by the Chancellor help ease the pain?
In this blog, we highlight changes to law, practice and procedure that will or could impact the restructuring insolvency market this year – covering important changes that should be on your radar – as well as providing an update on those changes that were expected but which might be delayed beyond 2020.
Brexit – will it be business as usual for R&I practitioners?
This week sees the UK finally leave Europe.
First, there was the HMV case, then Skeggs Beef and SJHenderson. Following which we had further judicial decision in All Star Leisure and now Keyworker Homes, all of which considered the validity of appointment of administrators using the e-filing system.
Keyworker Homes deals with these questions: