The recent case of Manolete Partners Plc v Hayward and Barrett Holdings Ltd [2021] EWHC 1481 (Ch) impacts both insolvency practitioners and assignees of insolvency claims, potentially making such claims more expensive to bring and a procedural burden by requiring (depending on the nature of the pleaded claims) two sets of proceedings, even though the claims arise from the same facts.

The Australian government has taken swift action to enact new legislation that significantly changes the insolvency laws relevant to all business as a result of the ongoing developments related to COVID-1

Suffering with mental health problems and being in financial difficulty are often strongly linked, with one frequently causing or worsening the other. The introduction of The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (referred to in this article as the ‘debt respite regulations’), which, with very limited exceptions, came into force on 4 May 2021, allows an eligible individual breathing space from any action a creditor may take for a ‘problem debt’.

Not only was 4 May Star Wars Day this year, it was also the day The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (referred to in this article as the ‘debt respite regulations’) came into force.

Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, most retail bankruptcy cases involved at least some effort to maximize value by selling real estate holdings. The Bon Ton Stores, Forever 21, Sears, and Toys ‘R’ Us cases, among others, are perfect examples. These cases have, for the most part, achieved such sales under section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code with minimal resistance, typically on expedited time-frames.

From 30 April 2021, an administrator will be unable to complete a sale of a substantial part of a company's property to a connected person within the first eight weeks of the administration without either:

• The approval of creditors
• An independent written opinion (positive or negative)

This alert considers the impact of the new regulations in practice, which apply to both pre-packs and post-packs that take place within eight weeks of an administrator's appointment.

When is an evaluator's report required?

The High Court dismissed landlords’ challenges to the terms of New Look’s company voluntary arrangement (CVA) last week in a ruling that has sparked lively debate within both the landlord and restructuring sectors.

The landlords challenged the CVA by way of three main limbs:

It is unfortunately a common story for anyone who has been in business for any length of time: the unscrupulous director who, rather than confront creditors in an insolvency process, simply disappears as if by magic by dissolving the company and re-appearing elsewhere moments later, leaving creditors clasping nothing but smoke. This loophole has frustrated creditors for many years as it means their only remaining option is a commercially unattractive application to restore the company to the register in order to petition to place the company into compulsory liquidation.

On 12 May 2021, the UK Government introduced the snappily titled “Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill”.

Following in the footsteps of the New Look CVA challenge judgment (see our blog here) it was not unsurprising that Zacaroli J dismissed all but one of the landlord challenge claims when handing down his judgment in Regis.