This note summarises the duties that directors of companies incorporated in England and Wales are subject to

This note summarises the duties that directors of companies incorporated in England and Wales are subject to.

This note explains those duties, and matters that directors should consider in relation to them, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Directors' Duties and Related Matters, in the Context of COVID-19

EMEA UK 2 July 2021

Scope and Purpose of This Note

This note summarises the duties that directors of companies incorporated in England and Wales are subject to.

This note explains those duties, and matters that directors should consider in relation to them, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Last year the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the Act) made both temporary and permanent changes to the UK insolvency laws.

As part of these measures, a provision was inserted into existing legislation which curtails the ability of suppliers to terminate supply contracts when a customer becomes insolvent (the so called `ipso facto regime').

There is a faint light at the end of the COVID tunnel for commercial landlords regarding timings and the ability to recover unpaid rent arrears. The UK Government has announced an extension to the current prohibition on forfeiture and winding up petitions, to enable it to introduce new legislation to help manage the £6bn estimated rent arrears.

The announcement provides a clearer pathway for both landlords and tenants, many of whom have paid no, or little rent since March 2020 as a consequence of the various Government imposed lockdowns.

These case summaries first appeared in LexisNexis’ Insolvency Case Alerter. They represent some of the more interesting insolvency decisions to have been published recently.

This summary covers:

1.Re PGH Investments Ltd [2021] EWHC 533 (Ch)

2.Re Mederco (Cardiff) Ltd [2021] EWHC 386 (Ch)

3.Lyle v Bedborough [2021] EWHC 220 (Ch)

4.Re TXU Ltd, Insolvency and Companies Court, 2 March 2021

5.Re Port Finance Investment Ltd [2021] EWHC 378 (Ch)

CVA challenges have been in the spotlight recently and the story continues with Nero Holdings Ltd v Young in which the court considered an application to strike out a CVA challenge claim. Although there is nothing ground-breaking in the court’s reasoning to dismiss the strike out/summary judgment application, its detailed reasoning will offer some helpful guidance and assistance to those involved in these applications.

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

Introduction

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The creditors of New Look Retailers Ltd (NLR) approved a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) that disproportionately impacted on a number of NLR’s landlords. The compromised landlords challenged the CVA on numerous grounds. In dismissing the application, Mr Justice Zacaroli held that the CVA was valid, notwithstanding that it sought to treat various creditors in different ways, and that challenges pursuant to section 6 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) failed.