As the coronavirus pandemic began spreading through Europe in the early months of 2020, the authorities had little idea of how best to respond – both to the virus itself, and its impact on livelihoods and businesses.

But since then, Europe’s major economies have introduced a suite of measures to contain COVID-19’s spread and keep the economic fallout from social restrictions to a minimum.

In March 2020, the UK government announced that changes will be made to enable UK companies undergoing a rescue or restructure process to continue trading, giving them breathing space that could help them avoid insolvency.

The legislation implementing this has now been laid before Parliament in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill. This includes measures intended to tide companies through the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as far-reaching wholesale reforms to the UK’s restructuring toolbox.

As the business world starts to count the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic and the government measures taken to contain it, attention is turning to the tools available to help companies that have been financially impacted.

Many companies are deferring payments to conserve liquidity, raising difficult questions around directors’ duties and leading to an immediate focus on how to protect the business from resulting creditor action.

The English Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in the Debenhams case, on which we acted. A copy of the judgment can be downloaded here. This upholds the decision of the High Court, which followed the earlier decision in Carluccio’s.

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

How would your business be impacted if one of your critical suppliers entered insolvency proceedings? What losses could you suffer, and how would you maintain continuity of supply?

Recent high profile collapses such as Carillion have highlighted this issue, with counterparties suffering significant disruption upon its failure. In the context of increasing financial uncertainty – not least because of Brexit – companies should take a hard look at their supply chain in order to assess and mitigate counterparty risk.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court decision which validated dispositions of property made by a company after the winding up began.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On 8 May 2017, Bond J ordered that a coal exploration company (the Company) be wound up on just and equitable grounds following a shareholder oppression claim. So as to avoid the consequences of a liquidation, his Honour immediately stayed that order for a period of 7 days to enable the warring parties a final chance to resolve their differences.

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.