The interaction between the principles of insolvency law and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (JRS) have come into sharp focus in recent weeks, with the administrators of Carluccio's and Debenhams seeking guidance from the English courts about how the scheme impacts on their obligations to employees.

As part of its response to the COVID-19 situation, Companies House has announced that it will accept the filing of statutory insolvency documents via emailed PDF attachments.

This measure applies to companies registered in Scotland, as well as England & Wales and is yet another practical example of the steps being taken to try and alleviate the administrative burden on insolvency practitioners.

It is perhaps not as well-known as it should be that the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 sections 195 – 198 provides a six-week moratorium – effectively a postponement or period of protection from action to recover debts - to individuals, partnerships and trusts facing financial distress or liquidity issues.

The moratorium provides breathing space to allow parties to be protected from their creditors while they take advice and consider what debt relief options might be available to them.

A party can normally apply for the moratorium once in any 12-month period.

Wrongful trading rules, which can result in directors being personally liable for losses incurred as a result of continued trading, are being temporarily suspended in recognition of the large number of businesses being impacted by COVID-19. While this news will be welcomed by businesses across the UK, directors should not be complacent about their responsibilities.

The liquidation of Thomas Cook Group last month – and the ensuing cancellation of all flights and repatriation of 140,000+ customers – has prompted fresh scrutiny of the UK’s approach to airline insolvency.

When considering whether or not to bring a legal action, it is important to establish if it is competent and commercially worthwhile to do so. The ability to bring, or continue with, legal proceedings against a company can be restricted if that company enters into a formal insolvency process. The position of creditors may be improved now that the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 has at last been brought into force.

The existence of trusts that may be connected to a borrower’s assets can be a lending hazard. They do not appear on PPSA search print-outs and, in many cases, they are not shown on a borrower’s financial statements and cannot be searched through traditional due diligence methods.

A recent decision of the Tax Court of Canada highlights the benefits of a broadly drafted general security agreement (GSA) in relation to a secured creditor’s realization on a bankrupt borrower’s intangible assets in the form of GST input tax credits (ITCs).

If Peter Morton and Cinitel Corp. had their way, every lender would have a distinct duty to a guarantor to permit the sale of a defaulting borrower’s assets as a going concern. In their view, a lender should be required to maximize its recovery from the borrower and to minimize any claim made on a guarantee. Fulfilling that duty would also obligate a lender to keep funding a borrower while that asset sale was negotiated and completed. It is enough to make any lender cringe.

Fortunately, the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with Morton and Cinitel’s view of the lending world.

In an earlier edition of Fully Secured (June 27, 2012 – Volume 3, Number 2), we reported on the Ontario Court of Justice decision in Snoek ⁷ where security granted by a borrower (“HSLP”) to a group of individual creditors (“B”) was held to constitute an improper preference and declared invalid following a challenge by the trustee in bankruptcy. B had been one victim of a Ponzi scheme involving numerous unsecured creditors of HSLP.