The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (CIGB) was introduced to Parliament on 20 May 2020 and includes measures both as a response to COVID-19, which apply temporarily, and measures which apply permanently, part of a long-planned package of insolvency reform measures.

Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the order of Mr Justice Foxton dated 20 May 2020 (the ‘Order’), the Viscount of the Royal Court of Jersey (the Fifth and Tenth Respondent) has, on the request of Harbour Fund II LP (the Seventh Respondent), instructed Addleshaw Goddard to post a copy of Schedule 4 to the Order on its website.

Schedule 4 of the Order reads as follows:

CLAIM NO: CL-2017-000323

Key insolvency provisions: a practical guide to what has changed and why

TEMPORARY PROVISIONS

1. SUSPENSION OF WRONGFUL TRADING PROVISIONS

What's changed?

Included in this update: Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill introduced to Parliament; FRC updates guidance on corporate governance and reporting and more...

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill introduced to Parliament

In the recent decision of British Columbia Attorney General v Quinsam Coal Corporation, 2020 BCSC 640 (Quinsam), the British Columbia Supreme Court (the Court) considered the priority between a debtor’s environmental liabilities and a secured creditor. In its analysis, the Court extensively discussed the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (Redwater). In reference to Redwater, the Court posed the following question:

In Toronto-Dominion Bank v Canada,¹ the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) upheld the Federal Court’s decision² that the Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) was required to pay to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) proceeds of $67,854 for unremitted GST that TD received as repayment from a borrower upon the discharge of a TD mortgage.

On May 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its reasons for the decision rendered in 9354-9816 Québec Inc. et al. v. Callidus Capital Corporation, et al on January 23, 2020. The SCC unanimously allowed the appeal from the Québec Court of Appeal’s decision, reinstating an order allowing third-party litigation funding in insolvency proceedings.

Background

These are unprecedented and uncertain times. Everywhere, the COVID-19 pandemic has strained revenue streams and asset prices, shaken investor and consumer confidence, and caused overall financial conditions to deteriorate. Everyone is asking the same question: How do we deal with the financial fallout of COVID-19?

In many cases, parties are working together to overcome these financial challenges, preserve value and navigate a mutually beneficial path forward.

On 28 March 2020, the Government proposed certain insolvency law reforms in response to the COVID-19 crisis, including a temporary suspension of wrongful trading provisions for company directors.

The measures are intended to apply retrospectively from 1 March 2020 for three months, and aim to encourage directors to continue to trade during the pandemic.

It has been reported that Debenhams which entered administration earlier this month for the second time will be managed as a 'light touch' administration.

In this article we look at what this actually means and whether 'light touch' administration could be a useful tool for both businesses and insolvency practitioners looking to negotiate a route through the coronavirus pandemic.