As always, there has been a lot going on in insolvency.  We have highlighted below a few of the more important developments that we have seen in a very busy 2020 for insolvency lawyers. 

Re Tokenhouse VB Ltd (Formerly VAT Bridge 7 Ltd) [2020] EWHC 3171 (Ch)

The challenges facing the businesses of the United Kingdom at the start of 2021 are perhaps greater than any of us have seen in our lifetimes. In addition to the economic consequences of the restrictions on daily life imposed to counter Covid-19, we are now seeing the effects of the exit of the UK from the EU with businesses having had little time to get up to speed on the new regime.

I have obviously been a good boy this year because my gift from the Insolvency Service has arrived - the November 2020 Insolvency statistics. And like any properly brought up child, I decided to sneak a peek at my present before Christmas Day.

What the numbers show us is a continuation of the trend that the previous figures disclosed - corporate insolvencies remain markedly lower than the equivalent period last year. In Scotland in particular this is driven by a massive reduction in the number of compulsory liquidations this year (Nov 2019 - 56; Nov 2020 - 13).

Earlier this year the UK Government introduced a number of temporary measures intended to avoid large scale insolvencies across the country. One of these measures was the suspension of wrongful trading liability.

This suspension was in place until September 30, 2020. Most of the other temporary measures were extended (e.g. the effective suspension of winding up petitions by creditors has been extended until December 31, 2020) but the suspension of wrongful trading liability was not extended.

The Insolvency Service has released the latest insolvency statistics (to September 2020). 

These figures are particularly interesting as they shed light on the effects of the various changes to the insolvency landscape that have occurred since Covid-19 started to affect the economy.

Since March 2020, we have seen the introduction of the Corporate Insolvency & Governance Act ("CIGA"), Government schemes and lockdowns of various sizes, shapes and geographical restrictions. 

The statutory provisions for Restructuring Plans form a new Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. CIGA was brought into force on June 26, 2020 and at a hearing in the High Court in London on September 2, 2020, the plan proposed by Virgin Atlantic, which was the first to be brought before the courts, was sanctioned.

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.

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.