The recently reported decision of ICC Judge Greenwood in Grove Independent School Ltd, Re [2023] EWHC 2546 (Ch) (Grove) provides some clarity on the test to be applied by the court in deciding whether to exercise discretion to grant an order for a Part A1 moratorium. In this case, the company in question was also faced with a winding-up petition, presented by His Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
The Bankruptcy Protector
Background
On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 concerning the trigger point at which directors must have regard to the interests of creditors pursuant to s.172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 (the "creditors' interests duty").
The Bankruptcy Protector
Imagine this: you sell a product to a company on credit at 8% interest until you are paid, and the company files for bankruptcy before repayment. Or maybe you are a hard money lender that made an unsecured loan at 18% to a company to bridge through hard times, and the company files for bankruptcy. Or maybe you are a secured creditor with a 5% loan on real estate, and after the borrower files for bankruptcy, you discover there is a defect in your mortgage and your lien can be stripped.
A person in possession of a debtor’s property upon a bankruptcy filing now has more guidance from the Supreme Court as to the effect of the automatic stay. In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2021), handed down on January 14 of 2021, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the City of Chicago (the “City”) was liable for violation of the automatic stay for refusing to return vehicles it impounded pre-petition. Issuing a narrow decision under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that it was not.
Today, new legislation comes into force* that provides directors of companies in financial difficulty with a second breathing space from the financial impact of the wrongful trading provisions.
On 26 June 2020, The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Act) became law, providing the UK (but with separate provisions for Northern Ireland) with temporary and permanent changes to insolvency law aimed at helping businesses manage the economic implications of COVID-19.
Of particular interest to the construction industry will be one of the new Act’s permanent measures relating to continuing supply.
Judgment has now been handed down by Marcus Smith J in another important case regarding the Lehman estate. This gives much needed clarity on how subordinated debts rank as between themselves.
The judgment concerned:
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduces a temporary, retrospective suspension of the directors' personal financial liability for wrongful trading from 1 March 2020 until 30 September 2020. This is not a blanket defence to a breach of duty by directors, since the directors' general duties to act in the best interests of the company (or, on insolvency, its creditors),will continue to apply.
On 26 June the long-awaited Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 came into force and introduced emergency measures to provide protection to directors of companies which continue to trade notwithstanding the threat of insolvency, and to prevent, where possible, companies entering into insolvency due to COVID-19.