The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill was recently introduced into Parliament. While the effects of some of the changes proposed are intended to be only temporary, they have potential consequences for pension schemes.
Changes of particular relevance are as follows:
- Restrictions on the use of statutory demands for winding up petitions.
- New Moratorium process
- Court approved corporate restructuring plan
The Bill received its second and third readings on 3 June 2020 and will now go to the House of Lords for consideration.
On May 21, 2020, the Québec Court of Appeal (QCA) released its reasons in Arrangement relatif à 9323-7055 Québec inc. (Aquadis International Inc.)[1](the Aquadis case).
The government has published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill which, if passed, will significantly restrict suppliers’ ability to exit commercial agreements due to restructuring or insolvency-related causes.
That the current pandemic has thrown a curveball at many businesses is a given.
At the end of February, the Bank of Scotland Business Barometer reported that overall business confidence in the UK was at a net balance of 23%. Only two months later and confidence plunged to minus 29%.
The government has introduced fundamental changes to the procedures for presenting winding-up petitions and making winding-up orders in the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Bill.
Introduction
On May 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its written reasons in 9354-9186 Québec Inc. v. Callidus Capital Corp.[1](the Bluberi case).
On April 15, 2020, the British Columbia Supreme Court denied an application by a married couple previously found to have contravened B.C. securities laws for an absolute or suspended discharge from bankruptcy under s. 172 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”). The ruling sends a strong message that securities law violators will have difficulty using the bankruptcy process to absolve themselves of the financial consequences of their misdeeds.
A recent Sheriff Court judgment is the latest decision to consider the role and remit of the court reporter in a liquidation which, unusually, involved the court appointing two reporters.
In Scotland, the Insolvency (Scotland) (Receivership and Winding Up) Rules 2018 provide that where there is no creditors committee, the remuneration of a liquidator shall be fixed by the court. In practice, the court appoints a reporter to examine and audit the liquidator’s accounts and to report on the amount of remuneration to be paid.
On top of the multiple challenges hitting retail and leisure landlords and occupiers arising from COVID-19, the news that Intu has had to write down the value of its shopping centre portfolio by nearly £2 billion came as further bad news.
It seems that business disruption due to coronavirus is pretty inevitable. What should you as a company director be doing if the disruption means your business starts to suffer?
What changes for me as a director?
As a director, you know that you owe duties to the company. When the business starts heading towards insolvency, there is a change of emphasis and instead of doing what is best for the shareholders, you have to change and consider what the consequences of your actions will be for the company’s creditors.
Introduction
On August 29, 2019, the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal held in Canada v. Canada North Group Inc., 2019 ABCA 314 (Canada North) that priming charges granted in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) Initial Order can have priority over the Crown’s deemed trust for unremitted source deductions. [1]