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.
In these unprecedented times there has been much discussion and focus in the property community of the effect of tenants unable to operate their businesses and the risks of widescale insolvencies.
This is the second litigation involving the furlough scheme in the insolvency context, following on from Re Carluccio's (in administration). Please refer to our note on Carluccio's for background reading on how the furlough scheme weaves into insolvency law.
Issue
In the first litigation involving the Furlough scheme, the court in Re Carluccio's (in administration) ruled on how the administrators can lawfully give effect to furlough arrangements with the employees who have agreed to the variation of their employment contract.
Read on for our analysis of the case which gives an interesting insight into how the courts in the future might interpret the furlough scheme.
1. Background
Carluccio’s in administration
GENERAL INSOLVENCY LANDSCAPE IN GERMANY PRE-COVID-19
Without undue delay upon occurrence of illiquidity or overindebtedness, at the latest within three weeks, members of the representing body of a legal entity have to apply for the opening of insolvency proceedings over the assets of such entity
INSOLVENCY REASONS:
Re Debenhams Retail Limited [2020] EWHC 921 (Ch)
CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE – INTRODUCING FLEXIBILITY TO DIRECTORS' DUTIES?
IN LIGHT OF COVID-19, THE UK GOVERNMENT RECENTLY ANNOUNCED ITS INTENTION TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND THE OFFENCE OF WRONGFUL TRADING BY DIRECTORS OF UK COMPANIES. THIS WILL INEVITABLY HAVE A WIDE-RANGING EFFECT ON BOTH DIRECTORS AND CREDITORS.
The Carluccio’s judgment provides some much-needed clarity on the interrelation of the Furlough Scheme and the requirements of insolvency legislation. It is to be commended for its clarity and for the fact that it had to construe the workings of the Furlough Scheme in the absence of any statutory guidance as to its implementation. It is to be hoped that, when the Government comes to enact the necessary legislative measures (including perhaps amendments to Schedule B1 and IR 2016), that it does so with this judgment very firmly in mind.
While in previous weeks the winding up petition list has been adjourned for a minimum of three months, this week’s list was successfully conducted by Skype. This article discusses how the hearings worked.
As most businesses, landlords and property solicitors will now know, s.82 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (“CA 2020”) means there can be no forfeiture for non-payment of rent until July 2020, possibly later (“the relevant period”). But forfeiture has never been the only option open to a landlord whose tenant isn’t paying rent. The government lockdown was announced just two days before the March quarter day, with the inevitable consequence that many businesses did not pay the March quarter day rent.