What is it?

A new form of restructuring plan (RP) which can be entered into with all creditors. It is found within the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (Bill) and assuming it is enacted in its current form, it will sit next to schemes or arrangements in the Companies Act 2006 (rather than the Insolvency Act 1986) by way of a new Part 26A, ss895-901, and as with a scheme of arrangement the RP will seek to achieve an agreed compromise / arrangement between a company, its members and/or its creditors.

The Insolvency Service has released statistics on the level of insolvencies in April 2020. This allows us to take a look at the immediate effect of insolvencies post-lockdown compared with those before.

Statistics

The landscape relating to winding-up petitions has changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Hundreds of petitions have been adjourned already, and the new Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction has now adjourned all hearings due to take place before 21 April across the country. It also sets out new procedures and timings for the listing and re-listing of petitions, with many hearings in London and the regions moving to hearings by video-conference for the foreseeable future.

The Australian Government has introduced new laws which are intended to avoid unnecessary corporate insolvencies in light of the challenges presented by the unfolding COVID-19 global pandemic. The new laws came into effect on 25 March 2020 and include:

As we see more businesses having to close doors or adapt to a new set of rules, we set out a summary of some of the issues we anticipate for those needing to shut down but preserve their businesses at least until the lockdown is over. We will produce a more detailed client alert as matters develop although one message is clear – employers, employees, suppliers and customers are facing unique challenges and the best way to survive is to identify the issue, understand the options, and engage with pragmatism.

Employees

Just in time for the Chinese New Year, a Hong Kong court has taken a major step forward in the developing law on cross-border insolvency by recognizing a mainland Chinese liquidation for the first time. In the Joint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 167, Mr. Justice Harris granted recognition and assistance to mainland administrators in Hong Kong so they could perform their functions and protect assets held in Hong Kong from enforcement.

Just in time for Chinese New Year, a Hong Kong court has taken a major step forward in the developing law on cross-border insolvency by recognising a mainland Chinese liquidation for the first time. InJoint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 167, Mr Justice Harris granted recognition and assistance to mainland administrators in Hong Kong so they could perform their functions and protect assets held in Hong Kong from enforcement.

Since the news of Thomas Cook’s demise a lot of focus has been on its travel customers. But beyond repatriating stranded holiday makers, the impact of large scale insolvencies such as Thomas Cook, Carillion and British Steel can be far reaching.

Those relying on the likes of Thomas Cook for business may also face financial distress as the impact of its insolvency ripples down the supply chain. Potentially impacting suppliers of goods and services, those who relied on Thomas Cook’s business outside of the UK, employees and landlords.

It was a painful outcome for the administrator of ARY Digital UK Limited (“ARY”) when he was found in breach of duty and liable to pay £743,750.

The case of Brewer and another (as joint liquidators of ARY Digital UK Ltd) vIqbal [2019] EWHC 182 (Ch) reminds office holders of the importance of understanding what assets they are selling, ensuring that correct marketing processes are employed and obtaining proper valuations.

Administrators are statutorily entitled to require a receiver to vacate office (paragraph 41 Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)). In Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd vCraig and another [2017] EWHC 2405 (Ch) they did just that, taking steps to remove existing receivers not long after their appointment, claiming the action to be in the interests of all the creditors. On the facts, that decision was not only unreasonable but costs were also awarded personally against the administrators.

Brief facts and arguments