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.

A recent decision from a trial court sitting in Illinois calls into question whether debt collectors can rely on a widely used disclosure when collecting debt that may be subject to an expired limitations period.

A copy of the opinion in Richardson v. LVNV Funding, LLC is available at:  Link to Opinion.

In a 5-3 decision handed down on May 15, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is not violated when a debt collector files a proof of claim for a debt subject to the bar of an expired limitations period. The decision:

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument Tuesday in Midland Funding v. Johnson. A primary issue before the Court is whether the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is violated by the filing in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case of a proof of claim representing a debt subject to an expired limitations period. The case originated from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which along with its earlier decision in Crawford v. LVNV, held the FDCPA is violated in those instances. Every other Circuit Court of Appeals has since found otherwise.

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.

Filing a proof of claim with a bankruptcy court representing a debt subject to an expired state law limitations period does not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) under an opinion released yesterday from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under the ruling, in Owens v. LVNV, the Seventh Circuit joins the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in rejecting the Eleventh Circuit’s holding under Crawford v. LVNV that such proofs of claim violate the FDCPA.