The Bottom Line

The recent High Court decision in Hellard & Anor v Registrar of Companies & Ors [2020] EWHC 1561 (Ch) (23 June 2020) serves as a useful reminder to any party seeking the restoration of a company to the Register of Companies that it is important first to consider whether such party has the requisite standing to make the application.

The first half of 2020 saw a wave of company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) as companies explored their restructuring options against the backdrop of a darkening economic outlook.

Suppliers can no longer terminate contracts, refuse to supply goods or services or amend payment terms with an insolvent customer due to its insolvency, save in limited circumstances. The new rules - brought in by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) - governing protection of supplies significantly restrict parties’ autonomy in relation to customer insolvency and will be a cause of concern for many suppliers.

New protection of supplies to insolvent companies

In his judgment handed down on 7 May 2020 in the case of Gregory v ARG (Mansfield) Ltd [2020] EWHC 1133 (Ch), HH Judge Davis-White QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, commented (on an obiter basis) that where a company regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) seeks to enter administration, section 362A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA 2000”) and paragraph 29 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Insolvency Act”), require that writ

On 20 May 2020, the Corporate Insolvency & Governance Bill 2019-2021 was introduced to Parliament. With the Bill slated to be fast-tracked into law, here are some of the key insolvency aspects to be aware of.

Why now?

The extraordinary disruption to UK business caused by the COVID-19 lockdown has spawned much discussion about changes to existing insolvency laws to help businesses which are struggling to survive in this abnormal environment. One topic of discussion has been the so-called ‘light touch’ administration. Here we provide a quick overview of what this involves.

What do we mean by a ‘light touch’ administration?

The Bottom Line

In Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. v. Keach (In re Montreal, Me. & Atl. Ry.), No. 19-1894 (1st Cir. Apr. 9, 2020), the First Circuit held that when determining the value of legal claims as collateral, the party with the burden of proof must establish the likely validity of the claim and the likelihood of recovery — demonstrating possible damages alone does not suffice.

What Happened?

Background

It is now common knowledge that the Government has responded to the COVID-19 crisis with a number of protective measures, including the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS), which provides support to businesses that cannot maintain their current workforce because their operations have been severely affected by COVID-19. Under the CJRS, employers can apply for a grant to cover 80% of the wages (up to £2,500 per month) of employees who are placed on furlough leave.

In its recent decision in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., No. 18–1269 (Sup. Ct. Feb. 25, 2020), the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not apply the federal common law “Bob Richards Rule” to determine who owns a tax refund when a parent holding company files a tax return but a subsidiary generated the losses giving rise to the refund. Instead, the court should look to applicable state law.

General Legal Background