The High Court has expedited a trial at which it would be determined whether luxury car manufacturer McLaren Group could obtain the release of certain security for the benefit of its senior noteholders, failing which a financial restructuring which was contingent on that release could not be implemented: McLaren Holdings Ltd v US Bank Trustees Ltd [2020] EWHC 1892 (Ch). The court concluded that, absent determination of the proceedings within one month, McLaren Group would have no choice but to enter an insolvency process and that this justified expedition in this case.

In what is likely to be one of this year’s landmark insolvency decisions, the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale has considered the interaction between insolvency set-off and adjudication, though the judgment is likely to have application to other dispute resolution processes including litigation and arbitration. The Supreme Court, unlike the High Court and Court of Appeal, permitted the adjudication to continue and, in doing so, dismissed the suggestion that insolvency set-off always results in the extinction of cross-claims to be replaced by a single claim for the balance.

In what is likely to be one of this year’s landmark insolvency decisions, the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale has considered the interaction between insolvency set-off and adjudication, though the judgment is likely to have application to other dispute resolution processes including litigation and arbitration.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) was published on 20 May 2020 and introduced a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern. The Bill went through the House of Commons on 3 June and passed through the House of Lords on 23 June. The Bill was back before the House of Commons today and is likely to receive Royal Assent next week (at which point the Bill will become law).

The High Court has held that s.236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) does not have extra-territorial effect, so that the court is not generally permitted to make an order requiring a person outside the UK to produce books and papers and give an account of their dealings with an insolvent company: Re Akkurate Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] EWHC 1433 (Ch).

As set out in the first blog in this series, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) introduces a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern.

As set out in the first blog in this series, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) introduces a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern.

On 20 May 2020, the UK Government introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) to the House of Commons. The Bill introduces a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern. The Bill is currently only in draft form and therefore amendments may be made. It is anticipated that the legislation will come into force by the end of June 2020.

This blog (the first in a series of blogs about this new measure) outlines the key provisions of the moratorium and how it will work.

The UK Government published the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Bill on 20 May 2020. The legislation will be fast tracked and include both temporary and permanent changes to the UK insolvency legislation.

The temporary measures, aimed at supporting businesses struggling with cash flow and facing distress due to COVID-19, include prohibitions on presentation of winding up petitions and winding up orders, suspension of wrongful trading laws and the ability to apply for a moratorium.

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.