Introduction
Insolvency Laws – all change in 2020, what about 2021?
Appointing administrators
Changes to pre-packs
Practice and procedure
In the final part of our predictions for 2021 for the UK insolvency market we look at pensions, the National Security and Investment Bill and cross border matters.
Following on from part 1 of our predictions for 2021 for the UK restructuring market part 2 looks at CVAs, directors duties and HMRC and insolvencies.
We had hoped to cover off everything in 2 parts, but 2021 looks to be a busy year so we will publish the final part of this series next week.
Company Voluntary Arrangements – the continued evolution of the CVA
The Pensions Schemes Act received Royal Assent yesterday (11 February).
For those involved in restructuring it is important to be aware that the Act introduces new offences, carrying hefty fines and the possibility of imprisonment that apply to “any person”. Given the wide scope of the drafting the new offences could capture directors, insolvency practitioners, lenders and other professional advisors commonly involved in a restructuring whose only defence to such a claim is that they acted with “reasonable excuse” – a term not defined in the legislation.
At the start of 2020, we considered what changes the UK restructuring and insolvency market might expect to see during the year – however no one could sensibly have predicted the significant and far reaching impact of COVID-19.
In part 1 of our blog, we look back at 2020 and look forward to what the UK restructuring market can expect in 2021 considering the new Insolvency Laws, expected Rule changes, pre-pack sales and practice and procedural points.
Insolvency Laws – all change in 2020, what about 2021?
The real lesson from Debut Homes – don't stiff the tax (wo)man
The Supreme Court has overturned the 2019 Court of Appeal decision Cooper v Debut Homes Limited (in liquidation) [2019] NZCA 39 and restored the orders made by the earlier High Court decision, reminding directors that the broad duties under the Companies Act require consideration of the interests of all creditors, and not just a select group. This is the first time New Zealand’s highest court has considered sections 131, 135 and 136 of the Companies Act, making this a significant decision.
The case of Arlington Infrastructure Ltd (In Administration) v Woolrych [2020] EWHC 3123 (Ch) is a cautionary reminder to qualifying floating charge holders (and their advisors) to review the terms of all security documents, before seeking to appoint an administrator.
The case of Arlington Infrastructure Ltd (In Administration) v Woolrych [2020] EWHC 3123 (Ch) is a cautionary reminder to qualifying floating charge holders (and their advisors) to review the terms of all security documents, before seeking to appoint an administrator.
Introduction
Consequences of Tokenhouse for a QFCH
What can a QFCH do if it does not receive notice of intention to appoint administrators?
Earlier in the year, we published a blog regarding the impact of the moratorium introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. In particular, we flagged that the moratorium may result in a significant loss of control for secured lenders and qualified floating charge holders (QFCH).