The High Court has ruled that directors breached their duties by taking up the company’s business opportunity for their own benefit, even if the company was unable to take up that opportunity by reason of its financial position: Davies v Ford & Ors [2020] EWHC 686.

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.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) over the weekend announced a number of proposed changes to UK insolvency law in response to the COVID-19 crisis.

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.

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:

Causer v All Star Leisure (Group) Ltd [2019] EWHC 3231 (Ch) (Causer) is yet another case which highlights the issues that e-filing can cause for practitioners when using the system to appoint administrators.

The decision in Causer followed Skeggs Beef in concluding that whilst the appointment of an administrator by a QFCH out of hours using the e-filing system is defective it is a defect capable of remedy. The case is nevertheless worthy of note because:

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal reconfirmed that the Duomatic principle can only apply where all shareholders have approved the relevant act of the company. It is not enough that a relevant individual would have approved the act had they known about it: Dickinson v NAL Realisations (Staffordshire) Ltd [2019] EWCA CIV 2146.