On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act^[1] (the Act) came into force.

The Act has significant implications for supply contracts as it will prevent many suppliers ending existing contracts once a business is insolvent. The Act will make a big impact on existing supply contracts, and will also affect the drafting and negotiation of new contracts.

The COVID-19 crisis is already showing signs of pushing the UK economy into recession, has undoubtedly impacted the M&A market in the UK and increased the likelihood of businesses entering into insolvency proceedings. However, history tells us that shocks to the market do give rise to opportunities it's a question of knowing where they are and being prepared.

The Government continues to develop its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this Insight we examine the weekend's announcement from the Business Secretary that provides some welcome good news for directors.

Healthcare workers are on the frontline of fighting COVID-19, but directors of companies have an equally important task, that of keeping the wheels turning and helping minimise the damage to the economy and the livelihoods of their employees, and keeping otherwise viable businesses intact for when the crisis passes.

How should directors respond to the fast-moving situation and the challenges posed by assessing and dealing with the impact on the business?

The new housing administration regime for registered providers of social housing is now in force. Our latest Insight introduces the new legislation and highlights some of the key ways in which a housing administration will differ from a normal administration process.

InGrayson Consulting, Inc. v. Wachovia Securities, LLC (In re Derivium Capital LLC), 716 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit examined whether certain securities transferred and payments made during the course of a Ponzi scheme could be avoided as fraudulent transfers under sections 544 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court upheld a judgment denying avoidance of pre-bankruptcy transfers of securities because the debtor did not have an “interest” in the securities at the time of the transfers.

On January 10, 2012, a Florida bankruptcy court ruled in In re Pearlman, 462 B.R. 849 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012), that substantive consolidation is purely a bankruptcy remedy and that it accordingly did not have the power to consolidate the estate of a debtor in bankruptcy with the assets and affairs of a nondebtor. In so ruling, the court staked out a position on a contentious issue that has created a widening rift among bankruptcy and appellate courts regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over nondebtor entities.