The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) came into force on 26 June 2020, having been fast-tracked through Parliament. Although most of CIGA relates to insolvency law, the Act also makes some temporary changes to company law in the UK. The purpose of these is to give companies greater flexibility to deal with the difficulties caused by COVID-19.
Key changes
Over the past few weeks, the UK government, regulators and other bodies have moved to help businesses navigate the unprecedented disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. We start this briefing with a round-up of key changes in the areas of company law and corporate finance regulation.
Filing accounts
The Court of Appeal has considered whether interim dividends paid to a shareholder at a time when the company did not have sufficient distributable reserves, making the payments unlawful, could later be reclassified as salary payments.
Facts
The Court of Appeal has given guidance on when the duty of directors to have regard to the interest of creditors arises. This is an important point, as the general statutory duty of a director to promote the success of the company for the benefit of the company's members is expressly subject to the rules on creditors' interests. The court's decision also considers whether a dividend payment can be challenged as a transaction at an undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Facts
Owners of small business entities are frequently required to guaranty the debts of such entities. Those business entities might later file for Chapter 11, and may be able to achieve confirmation of a plan to restructure their indebtedness. The question then presented is whether this confirmation event affects the separate guaranty obligations of the owners? The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently explored this issue in In re: Larry
Most loan contracts include provisions allowing the collection of attorneys’ fees in the event the borrower defaults. These attorney fee provisions are routinely enforced in collection suits brought in state courts.
Insiders who loot their corporate entities often dispose of the cash proceeds in transactions with third parties. A recent Seventh Circuit opinion, In re Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc., 14-2174 (7th Cir. October 13, 2015) (the “EAR Opinion”)addresses a common risk faced by a third party who receives cash from the defrauding insider.
Parties continue to skirmish over the sufficiency of the “cram-down” interest rate required to confirm a Chapter 11 plan over a secured lender’s objection. Currently bankruptcy courts will give some weight to the “prime plus” formula set forth in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004)(plurality opinion).
On August 4, 2015, we posted: “Equitable Mootness In The Third Circuit: Dead Or Alive?”, which analyzed the Third Circuit’s opinion in In re One2One Communications. The post predicted that Judge Krause’s concurrence would likely result in further opinions on equitable mootness. Less than a month later we have such an opinion. InAurelius v. Tribune, 14-3332 (3d Cir.