Guidance for companies and company directors in Northern Ireland.

Overview

The adverse trading position caused by the COVID-19 situation is significantly impacting the majority of companies and is also bringing the duties of directors – particularly those relating to directors’ actions when a company is in difficulty or insolvent – into sharp relief.

Last week, the Government announced a number of measures to provide financial support to businesses struggling with the impact of COVID-19, including two new Government-backed funding schemes.

Addleshaw Goddard is monitoring those measures closely, with our latest updates found here.

Notwithstanding, it is inevitable that we will see more companies collapse over the coming months, as they struggle to cope with the indefinite business disruption.

With the measures in place to deal with the COVID-19 situation, volatility and disruption continue to affect Northern Ireland. As a leading full-service law firm, Arthur Cox is ideally placed to mobilise multi-disciplinary teams of lawyers to provide advice and support to organisations.

Systems Building Services Group Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch)

Liquidation is not a panacea for the relevance and application of directors' duties. A practical example of which involves a director of a company in insolvency procuring and agreeing to an off-market sale of a property to himself by a rogue IP at a price which he knew to be a significant undervalue.

1. INTRODUCTION 

1. In May 2019, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce ("UKJT"), a subsidiary of the UK's LawTech Delivery Panel, issued a consultation paper on the status of cryptoassets and smart contracts in English private law ("Consultation Paper"). In his foreword to the Consultation Paper, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court of England and Wales (the "Chancellor") commented that "perceived legal uncertainty" was the reason for some lack of confidence amongst market participants and investors in cryptoassets and smart contracts.¹

The recently published Pension Schemes Bill provides for major extensions of the Pensions Regulator's powers, including the creation of new criminal offences which are very broad in scope and could potentially catch a wide range of people. Whilst the Bill is not set to become law this side of the general election, it seems likely that a future government will seek to enact the measures contained in the Bill, many of which are likely to command cross-party support. 

• The Court of Appeal has given guidance to insolvent companies about whether to commence an adjudication.
• There is an important distinction to be drawn between a company in a CVA and one in liquidation.
• Parties need to be careful when making general reservations to an adjudicator's jurisdiction.

What's it about?

Garcia v Marex Financial Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1468

The Court of Appeal has for the first time applied the rule against reflective loss to claims by creditors. The rule had in the past only been used to prevent claims by shareholders against directors, where the losses claimed by the shareholders reflected those suffered by the company.

The Supreme Court has again urged the legislature to consider whether the outright prohibition on professional litigation funding and the assignment of bare causes of action continues to be warranted as the ever-increasing cost of litigation is putting access to the courts beyond the reach of many.

While the Court accepted that this is an area in need of careful and considered legislative reform, it warned that unless a real effort is made by the legislature to improve access to justice, it will have "no option" but to step in, "undesirable and all as unregulated change might be."

Orexim Trading Limited v (1) Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited ("MPT") (2) Singmalloyd Marine (S) PTE Limited ("Singmalloyd") (3) Zen Shipping and Ports India Private Limited ("Zen") [2018]

In a decision that will be of particular interest to creditors and insolvency practitioners contemplating section 423 Insolvency Act claims against defendants based outside the EU, the Court of Appeal has refused a claimant permission to serve a claim out of the jurisdiction.