Cryptoassets are traded on a global basis. Indeed, the markets are even more global and constant than markets in more conventional financial instruments, rivalled only perhaps by the FX markets in their reach.

The Supreme Court, in a key judgment handed down on 5 October 2022 (BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25), has provided some important clarification around the scope of directors’ duties in the context of companies that are nearing insolvency.

Factual background

On 26 March 2021 insolvency measures supporting businesses during the pandemic and aiding their recovery were extended.

Once again, the Government has legislated to extend existing insolvency temporary measures through the CIGA (Coronavirus) (Early Termination of Certain Temporary Provisions) Regulations 2020 and the CIGA (Coronavirus) (Suspension of Liability for Wrongful Trading and Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020. Additionally, the restrictions on forfeiture by landlords have been extended.

This is the second of two articles considering the corporate insolvency aspects of the Corporate Insolvency & Governance Act 2020 (the Act).  In the first article, we looked at the temporary measures introduced by the Act in response to the Covid-19 crisis and this second article explains the permanent reforms of insolvency law provided for in the Act.  These changes came into effect on 26 June 2020.

This first article comments on the temporary measures that are designed to alleviate the economic impact of COVID-19, namely the suspension of wrongful trading and restrictions placed on creditors serving statutory demands and winding-up petitions. These temporary provisions are intended to provide businesses with some breathing space during the current pandemic whilst they consider rescue options.

The High Court has dismissed applications to restrain the presentation of winding up petitions for reasons relating to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Background

Under the Scheme, furloughed employees, whose services cannot be used due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, will not be permitted to work for their employer during the period of furlough but the employer will be able to apply for a grant from the government to cover the cost of continuing to pay the employees 80% of their salary up to a cap of £2,500 per month.

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

In its recent decision in LBI EHF v Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719, the Court of Appeal confirmed the wide discretion enjoyed by a non-defaulting party under the default valuation provisions in the Global Master Repurchase Agreement (2000 edition) (“GMRA”) when it comes to determining the “fair market value” of securities.

In particular, when assessing “fair market value”, the non-defaulting party is entitled to have regard to any distressed or illiquid market conditions that were being experienced at the relevant time.