There have been some very gloomy stories in the press over the last week or so about rising company insolvency rates. All rather unwelcome during the season of goodwill.
Everyone knows that British businesses are facing a hugely difficult time with challenges coming from all directions – including high energy bills, rising interest rates, strikes, geopolitical uncertainty etc. etc.
But amidst the gloom there are some positives. For example:
As the chill of recession bites for homes and businesses alike, SMEs are faced with the daunting prospect of navigating their way through the bleak mid-winter. In October 2022, inflation reached 11.1% and company insolvencies were 38% higher than the same period last year. Creditors’ voluntary liquidations in the same period were 53% higher than in 2019 (i.e. pre-pandemic), continuing the theme of businesses being forced to consider this terminal insolvency process, as following the pandemic they have struggled to adapt to the challenging market conditions.
The recent decision in Re Astora Women’s Health LLC illustrates the importance of cross-border recognition of insolvency processes, highlighting the benefits of a joined-up global approach which recognises that modern business do not stop for international borders.
With Astora hot off the presses and the twenty-fifth anniversary of the UNCITRAL Model Law on the horizon the team at SPB have taken stock of the cross-border recognition framework from the perspective of the UK and the US.
Astora
Careful contract negotiation can limit the potential damage from insolvency in a construction firm’s supply chain.
Online claims-trading platform Xclaim Inc. came under scrutiny this past summer in the Madison Square Boys & Girls Club Inc. bankruptcy case pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Since at least 2019, Xclaim has executed agreements with at least five notice and claims agent firms to synchronize their proofs of claim registers with Xclaim’s website where such claims are posted for sale.
On 11th November 2022, Mr Justice Zacaroli handed down judgment on an application for directions made by the officeholders of ten different energy supply companies (“ESC” or “ESCs”) seeking clarification on issues arising in the insolvencies of the ESCs which had not previously been the subject of judicial consideration.
In terms of quantum, the issues were valued at in excess of a hundred million pounds across the ten insolvencies and potentially many more millions of pounds on other ESC insolvencies not before the court.
Whilst creditors’ voluntary liquidations (CVLs) have spiralled in number in recent months, the formerly popular company voluntary arrangement (CVA) has fallen out of the limelight. There were only 29 registered CVAs in Q3 2022, representing just 1% of recorded company insolvencies and languishing behind administrations (also down in number compared with Q2 2022).
A falling trend
Cryptocurrency exchange FTX has filed for bankruptcy in the USA after the proposed bail-out by rival exchange, Binance, fell through earlier this week.
With rising insolvency rates, driven in particular by the number of creditors’ voluntary liquidations reaching record highs, the decision in the recent Court of Appeal case of PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon [2022] EWCA Civ 1319 serves as a timely reminder for directors of the personal risks involved in re-using the name of a liquidated company.
Can a Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”) complete, but still remain in place and bind creditors?
The simple answer is yes; but it does require (a) the terms of the CVA to be carefully drafted to allow notice of completion to be filed before the end of the CVA term; (b) compliance with the terms of the CVA, and (c) careful consideration of the position of the supervisors, creditors and company.