Although the contentious background to the applications to restrain the presentation of two winding up petitions heard together in (but only listed singularly as) the case of Shorts Gardens LLB v London Borough of Camden Council [2020] EWHC 1001 (Ch) is somewhat unusual, these cases nonetheless raise some interesting points of principle which may be used by the courts in determining whether it is appropriate to restrain or dismiss a winding up petition due to COVID-19.

As businesses and companies in the UK face an uncertain few weeks and months with unprecedented pressures, it can be easy for directors to panic and not know where to turn.

To assist in decision-making, we give a reminder of the law in this area, and some signposts for those seeking help.

In this briefing, we give a short reminder of statutory duties owed by UK directors under the Companies Act 2006, the potential risks of continuing to trade while possibly insolvent, and actions that should be taken in order to mitigate those risks.

Directors’ duties

Hot on the heels of our April 2020 article on the proposed reintroduction of the Crown preference, Parliament has recently approved legislation that will increase the ring-fenced amount available to unsecured creditors on an insolvency of a company from £600,000 to £800,000.

In our last article, which can be found here, we reported on the government’s intention to give HMRC priority in the recovery of certain debts (including VAT, PAYE, Employee NICs, and Construction Industry Scheme deductions ) in insolvency proceedings.

In the landmark decision in Re Systems Building Services Group Limited [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch), ICC Judge Barber held that the duties of a director survive the insolvency of a company.

Client Alert

In recent years, constructively fraudulent transfer claims asserted in bankruptcy cases, especially those arising from LBOs and similar shareholder transactions, have hit a major road block.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently issued an opinion that addresses, among other issues, the question of whether section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code preempts certain fraudulent transfer avoidance actions brought under state law. In re Physiotherapy Holdings Inc., No. 15-51238 (Bankr. D. Del. June 20, 2016).

Parties to all legal proceedings - including bankruptcy proceedings - are entitled to Constitutionally protected due process rights, including reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. In the bankruptcy context, the debtor must give known creditors reasonable notice of certain critical events, including the sale of the debtor’s assets and the deadline to file claims against the debtor.

The Bankruptcy Code sets forth the relative priority of claims against a debtor and the waterfall in which such claims are typically paid. In order for a court to confirm a plan over a dissenting class of creditors – what is commonly called a “cram-down” – the Bankruptcy Code demands thateither (i) the dissenting class receives the full value of its claim, or (ii) no classes junior to that class receive any property under the plan on account of their junior claims or interests. This is known as the “absolute priority rule.”