A free-standing moratorium for financially distressed but ultimately viable companies was introduced in 2020. It is sometimes called a Part A1 moratorium, after the part of the Insolvency Act 1986 which provides for it.

Protecting your business from exposure to supplier and customer insolvency

As we move through Q1 of 2023, significant shifts are occurring in the Global financial and economic landscape which are of significant consequence for business. The marked upward shift in the cost (and reduced availability) of finance, largely unseen for over a decade, combined with high energy and natural resource/raw material costs and challenges and currency fluctuations has the potential to sharply to expose financial distress in businesses in many countries and global supply chains.

The 11 October 50-page judgment of Hildyard J in The joint administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) v FR Acquisitions Corporation (Europe) and JFB Firth Rixson will interest not only those who deal with ISDA Master Agreements (who may want to read the entire judgment), but also many lawyers and financial and commercial institutions. This is because the events of default which it had to consider, and especially the meaning of the word “continuing” in this context, are relevant to bonds, loans and various commercial contracts.

The Government’s roadmap out of lockdown signals a return to trading for a number of businesses hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. There is however potential for heightened financial distress in the coming period as existing support measures are withdrawn and currently deferred liabilities become payable, bringing the challenges faced by this sector into sharp focus.

The onset of COVID-19 has precipitated and accelerated substantial change for businesses in fashion retail, adding to particular headwinds already facing the sector in the UK. While many brick-and-mortar fashion retailers were already experiencing challenging trading conditions at the start of 2020 – ranging from rent and rates overheads to increased online competition – restrictions on and changes to consumer preferences resulting from the pandemic have intensified the challenges facing many fashion retailers and businesses operating in the supply chain.

Protecting your business from exposure to supplier and customer insolvency

The risk of unforeseen counterparty customer or supplier financial distress and failure amidst the on-going challenges for businesses from COVID-19 means that pre-emptive legal and operational protections against the risk of heavy financial loss or business disruption from customer/supplier failure are more valuable than ever.

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

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.