When a business is distressed and is due to run out of cash, advisors are often called upon to carry out an accelerated M&A process. Whilst there may be scope for the process to be run on a solvent (share sale) basis, it may need to be implemented on an assets basis, often via a formal insolvency process. Because of the undeniable threat of insolvency, directors of distressed businesses should obtain specialist legal advice on their duties at the earliest possible stage.

Board considerations

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill) has completed all of its stages in the House of Commons, without material amendment to the Bill as originally drafted. All three readings in the House of Lords are scheduled to take place in June 2020, and expectations are that the Bill will receive Royal Assent, and will be enacted, very shortly thereafter.

On 6 April 2020, the Insolvency Act 1986 (Prescribed Part) (Amendment) Order 2020 came into force. This order amends the Insolvency Act 1986 (Prescribed Part) Order 2003, and increases the maximum amount of the prescribed part from £600,000 to £800,000.

Prescribed Part

The “prescribed part” is the term given to a portion of funds realised from assets charged by way of floating, but not fixed, charge, where:

1 the floating charge was created on or after 15 September 2003; and

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

The government has responded to intense pressure from the restructuring and insolvency community by announcing measures to 'protect companies hit by COVID-19'. Insolvency law will be amended 'to give companies breathing space and keep trading while they explore options for rescue'.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.

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 BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA & Ors [2019], the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision that dividends can be challenged as transactions defrauding creditors under the Insolvency Act 1986.

In BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA & Others [2019], the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends can be challenged as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the '1986 Act').

The first instance decision: