R3, trade body for insolvency and restructuring accountants, said the first quarter of 2021 had seen a sharp fall in companies and individuals becoming bankrupt.
Corporate insolvencies in January to March fell by 31 per cent on the preceding quarter.
The figure was 63 per cent lower than the first quarter of 2020.
As always, there has been a lot going on in insolvency. We have highlighted below a few of the more important developments that we have seen in a very busy 2020 for insolvency lawyers.
Re Tokenhouse VB Ltd (Formerly VAT Bridge 7 Ltd) [2020] EWHC 3171 (Ch)
The challenges facing the businesses of the United Kingdom at the start of 2021 are perhaps greater than any of us have seen in our lifetimes. In addition to the economic consequences of the restrictions on daily life imposed to counter Covid-19, we are now seeing the effects of the exit of the UK from the EU with businesses having had little time to get up to speed on the new regime.
I have obviously been a good boy this year because my gift from the Insolvency Service has arrived - the November 2020 Insolvency statistics. And like any properly brought up child, I decided to sneak a peek at my present before Christmas Day.
What the numbers show us is a continuation of the trend that the previous figures disclosed - corporate insolvencies remain markedly lower than the equivalent period last year. In Scotland in particular this is driven by a massive reduction in the number of compulsory liquidations this year (Nov 2019 - 56; Nov 2020 - 13).
Earlier this year the UK Government introduced a number of temporary measures intended to avoid large scale insolvencies across the country. One of these measures was the suspension of wrongful trading liability.
This suspension was in place until September 30, 2020. Most of the other temporary measures were extended (e.g. the effective suspension of winding up petitions by creditors has been extended until December 31, 2020) but the suspension of wrongful trading liability was not extended.
The Insolvency Service has released the latest insolvency statistics (to September 2020).
These figures are particularly interesting as they shed light on the effects of the various changes to the insolvency landscape that have occurred since Covid-19 started to affect the economy.
Since March 2020, we have seen the introduction of the Corporate Insolvency & Governance Act ("CIGA"), Government schemes and lockdowns of various sizes, shapes and geographical restrictions.
The statutory provisions for Restructuring Plans form a new Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. CIGA was brought into force on June 26, 2020 and at a hearing in the High Court in London on September 2, 2020, the plan proposed by Virgin Atlantic, which was the first to be brought before the courts, was sanctioned.
In a matter of first impression, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York recently analyzed whether a debtor may exempt from her bankruptcy estate a retirement account that was bequeathed to her upon the death of her parent. In In re Todd, 585 B.R. 297 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y 2018), the court addressed an objection to a debtor’s claim of exemption in an inherited retirement account, and held that the property was not exempt under New York and federal law.
In a recent decision out of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia, a court analyzed the effect of a setoff effectuated between two governmental units in the 90 days prior to the filing of a husband and wife’s bankruptcy case. In Hurt v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (In re Hurt), 579 B.R. 765 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2017), the court addressed competing motions for summary judgment filed by the debtors, on the one hand, and the U.S.
In today's low interest rate environment, the difference between a contractual interest rate and the federal judgment rate can be quite significant. It is not surprising, therefore, that this issue has become hotly litigated in cases involving solvent Chapter 11 debtors. Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in Colfin Bulls Funding A v. Paloian (In re Dvorkin Holdings), 547 B.R. 880 (N.D. Ill.