Long awaited insolvency reforms in the UK, plus the government’s COVID-19 proposals on the use of statutory demands – and much more
What’s the latest?
In brief
The Federal Judiciary Council issued on April 27, 2020, the General Resolution 8/2020 on the Work Plan and Contingency Measures in the Jurisdictional Entities as a consequence of the Covid-19 Virus (the "Resolution").
The Resolution establishes that during the period from May 6 to May 31, 2020, only new requests, claims, ancillary proceedings and appeals, i.e. not previously filed, will be processed in urgent cases, regardless of whether they are filed physically or electronically.
On 23 June 2017, a reform to the Federal Criminal Code was enacted to classify the criminal offense of “illegal extrajudicial debt collection” established in article 284 Bis.
The Mexican insolvency and bankruptcy law (“Ley de Concursos Mercantiles” or “LCM“) that came into effect on May 12, 2000, abrogated the Mexican Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payments Law. One of the stated purposes of the LCM was to mitigate the impact that globalization and the free market had on Mexican corporations, especially after ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. The LCM, therefore, seeks to preserve businesses facing a general default on the payment of their obligations and thereby preserve jobs in Mexico.
The UK High Court today took a crucial step towards resolving the difficult issue of when administrators must pay rent.
After nearly two years of discussion and consultation, the UK Government has today announced that it will not be seeking to introduce new legislative controls on pre-packs, including a proposed three day notice or "cooling off" period.
The term “pre-pack” typically refers to a sale of all or part of a company’s business which is negotiated prior to the company going into administration and then completed by the administrator shortly after his appointment.
Last week the High Court of England and Wales revoked a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) promoted by retailer Miss Sixty in a damning judgment that called into question the conduct of the practitioners involved. The case of Mourant & Co Trustees Limited v Sixty UK Limited (in administration) [2010] could end so-called guarantee stripping – where the CVA purports to discharge guarantees given by a third party – and provide powerful ammunition to landlords seeking to negotiate future CVAs with tenant companies.
His Honour Judge Purle QC in Re Cornercare Limited [2010] EWHC 393 (CH) has clarified English law on the filing of successive notices of intention to appoint administrators. He has held that there is nothing in the relevant provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") to prevent the filing of successive notices of intention to appoint administrators, where the original notice of intention to appoint an administrator had not been acted upon for good reason.