As COVID-19 cases continue to span the globe, a significant economic impact is being felt globally. Businesses have been disrupted, cash flows have been interrupted and economies have been thrown into a huge negative shock.

In many countries across the world, governments have amended their insolvency and corporation legislation, or enacted new legislation, in order to provide temporary relief to entities in financial distress as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This blog examines the impact of these measures alongside the current position in Hong Kong and Singapore.

The UK government has announced that it will introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to, among other things, give businesses greater flexibility to help them emerge intact at the end of the pandemic.

As businesses and companies in the UK face an uncertain few weeks and months with unprecedented pressures, it can be easy for directors to panic and not know where to turn.

To assist in decision-making, we give a reminder of the law in this area, and some signposts for those seeking help.

In this briefing, we give a short reminder of statutory duties owed by UK directors under the Companies Act 2006, the potential risks of continuing to trade while possibly insolvent, and actions that should be taken in order to mitigate those risks.

Directors’ duties

Hot on the heels of our April 2020 article on the proposed reintroduction of the Crown preference, Parliament has recently approved legislation that will increase the ring-fenced amount available to unsecured creditors on an insolvency of a company from £600,000 to £800,000.

In our last article, which can be found here, we reported on the government’s intention to give HMRC priority in the recovery of certain debts (including VAT, PAYE, Employee NICs, and Construction Industry Scheme deductions ) in insolvency proceedings.

In the recent case of Signature Living Hotel Limited v Andrei Sulyok Roxana Monica Cocarla [2020] EWHC 257 (Ch), 2020 WL 00929732 the High Court considered whether two deeds of guarantee which failed as deeds (because the formalities for a deed had not been complied with) remained enforceable as a matter of contract.

Bankruptcy Rule 8002 and Federal Rule 58 can sometimes look like this. Carolina and Khaled have a much simpler solution.

When can a Federal Court employ a federal common law rule to make its decision in the case? Justice Gorsuch answer this in Rodriguez v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., U.S., No. 18-1269, 2/25/20.[1] The answer . . . less often than you might think.

In June 2019 the Government announced a plan to introduce a new “breathing space” scheme to protect individuals and families struggling with problem debt and to give those individuals and families extra help and time to get their finances under control.

So you (allegedly) violated a bankruptcy court order. Whether the debtor alleges you violated the terms of a confirmed plan, failed to provide certain notices required by the bankruptcy rules, violated the discharge injunction, or any other court order, you may be wondering what potential redress the debtor may seek. Although many violations of bankruptcy court orders and rules do not provide for a private right of action, many debtors seek to have their rights vindicated (in the form of the greatest vindicator, cash) through an action for contempt.