Following a long wait of 18 months, the Supreme Court has today confirmed that the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana is unanimously dismissed.
The key question that many of us have been waiting for the answer to is: Does the creditor duty set out in s172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 exist and if so, when is it engaged?
On Friday, 29 July the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment signed into law the European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (the Regulations).
The perceived costs of proposing a restructuring plan are seen to be the biggest inhibitors to using the process for SMEs. It is still a relatively new tool and insolvency practitioners, lawyers and the courts are still grappling with it, but as we have seen recently in Amigo Loans it can provide creative and innovative restructuring solutions[1].
It is often the case, that insolvency claims are pursued against former directors of the insolvent company or persons connected to them. It is also often the case, that such claims are assigned to a litigation funding company given lack of funds in the insolvent estate to pursue them. This is what happened in Lock v Stanley where various claims against the former directors, their parents and connected company were assigned to Manolete.
Pursuant to the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (COVID-19) Act 2020 (the COVID Act), “exceptional provision” to the operation of certain parts of the Companies Act 2014 (the Act) was made for a specific period of time, which period could be extended by order of the Government (the Interim Period). Yesterday, the government announced that it was extending the Interim Period until 31 December 2022.
Throughout the pandemic we have seen a succession of temporary practice directions, enabling practitioners to deal with the swearing of notices of intention (NOI) and notices of appointment (NOA) of administrators remotely, as well as answering a question which the judiciary had grappled with several times – when does a notice of intention or notice of appointment come into effect if filed outside of court hours?
Opening the door for the SME market, Sir Alistair Norris has sanctioned the first ever restructuring plan for a “mid-market” company. The plan sanctioned in Amicus Finance PLC (in administration) is also the first restructuring plan proposed by insolvency practitioners and the first to cram down a secured creditor.
The sanction judgment is short, but the adjourned convening hearing that was dealt with by Mr Justice Snowden (the first hearing was before Mr Justice Trowers) gives some insight into the plan.
There is a faint light at the end of the COVID tunnel for commercial landlords regarding timings and the ability to recover unpaid rent arrears. The UK Government has announced an extension to the current prohibition on forfeiture and winding up petitions, to enable it to introduce new legislation to help manage the £6bn estimated rent arrears.
The announcement provides a clearer pathway for both landlords and tenants, many of whom have paid no, or little rent since March 2020 as a consequence of the various Government imposed lockdowns.
The recent case of Manolete Partners Plc v Hayward and Barrett Holdings Ltd [2021] EWHC 1481 (Ch) impacts both insolvency practitioners and assignees of insolvency claims, potentially making such claims more expensive to bring and a procedural burden by requiring (depending on the nature of the pleaded claims) two sets of proceedings, even though the claims arise from the same facts.
The Irish Government has published the details of a new 'out-of-court' rescue process for small companies, the Small Company Administrative Rescue Process or 'SCARP'. The process seeks to borrow some features from the well-established examinership rescue process, but with one fundamental difference, being the limited role of the Irish courts proposed for SCARP. The relative high cost of examinership for smaller companies has historically been found to be a barrier for entry.