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.

In this article, we focus on working capital and consider ways a business can seek to weather the storm and preserve all-important liquidity through this challenging period.

Practical Tips

Given the unprecedented challenges presented by COVID-19 globally, what can senior management do in order to manage and mitigate the risk to the company's financial health?

As we close the week which has seen the Government and the Bank of England publish details of their financial support package for business, the business community awaits the formal launch of both the Coronovirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS) and the Covid Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF) next week.

CBIL scheme

The hair salon Regis announced recently that the company has entered administration. The news might not come as a surprise because the chain, prior to the company’s administration, was subject to a company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) whose validity was challenged by landlords.

The joint administrator of Regis commented: “trading challenges, coupled with the uncertainty caused by the legal challenge, have necessitated the need for an administration appointment”.

In Short

The Situation: Should liquidators be removed under section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) in circumstances where they engaged in preappointment discussions with a secured creditor, allegedly failed to investigate the company's affairs promptly, and retained the company's preappointment solicitors?

In Short

The Situation: A liquidator can reject a "double proof" for what is, in substance, the same debt as another accepted proof of debt.

The Question: When are liquidators justified in rejecting what could arguably be a double proof?

Today the Government published draft provisions for inclusion in the Finance Bill which will amend the Insolvency Act 1986 and grant HMRC preferential status on insolvency. A status that was removed in 2003 but which will be re-instated (in part) from 6 April 2020.

Despite huge concern from the lending market, voiced in responses to the Government’s consultation on this measure, the only material change we can see is confirmation that preferential status will not apply to insolvency proceedings commenced before 6 April 2020.

The proposal to reinstate Crown preference in insolvency has met resistance from all angles; the insolvency profession, turnaround experts, accountants, lawyers and funders. But despite HMRC’s bold statement in its consultation paper that the re-introduction of Crown preference will have little impact on funders, it is clear following a discussion with lenders that it may well have a far wider impact on existing and new business, business rescue and the economy in general than HMRC believes.

The Federal Court of Australia rules that receivers appointed to a company in liquidation are entitled to pay employee entitlements and fees.

In Short

The Situation: Section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (WA) ("Act")provides that if a creditor and a company in liquidation have mutual dealings, the creditor must offset any sum the creditor owes to the company in liquidation against debt owed by the company.

The Question: Does the existence of a third party security interest over circulating assets (floating charge) which are intended to be set off against other debts prevent the dealings from being "mutual"?