Many investors, including PE firms, are waiting with bated breath to see how the UK economy, currently dependent on COVID-19-related government support, will respond once that stimulus is withdrawn. An increase in UK company insolvencies is expected, creating opportunities for savvy investors to acquire businesses at bargain prices, while at the same time appearing to be white knights swooping in to save a beloved high street brand or large regional employer.

On 8 July 2021, the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021 (the Regulations) will come into force in the UK and introduce a new special administration regime for insolvent payment institutions (PIs) and electronic money institutions (EMIs). The key purposes of the Regulations are to ensure that, if a PI or EMI becomes insolvent (and/or it is fair or expedient to put the institution into special administration), funds are quickly returned to customers and any shortfalls in the amounts available are minimised.

Today (16 June 2021) the UK governmentannounced a further extension of some (but not all) of the temporary measures first introduced by the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Act 2020 (CIGA) in June last year.

The two most significant temporary measures for companies facing financial difficulties as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic were:

Today (16 June 2021) the UK governmentannounced a further extension of some (but not all) of the temporary measures first introduced by the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Act 2020 (CIGA) in June last year.

The two most significant temporary measures for companies facing financial difficulties as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic were:

There has been much debate in recent years around the use made of certain UK restructuring tools – the company voluntary arrangement and, more recently, the new restructuring plan – to restructure commercial property leases. Commercial tenants argue that compromise is necessary to address high fixed costs that are no longer sustainable, but landlords have often been critical of the approach taken. This debate has become more acute in the context of the pandemic, as many High Street businesses subject to mandatory closure have built up significant rent arrears that need to be addressed.

The financial loss and the uncertainty caused by the pandemic continues to affect business globally, and an increase in corporate insolvency is widely anticipated. Arbitration is an effective dispute resolution mechanism, but a counterparty entering insolvency proceedings can be disruptive. We recently wrote about insolvency being one of the key trends in international arbitration in 2021.

A new bill, which the UK Government introduced to Parliament on 12 May 2021, seeks to extend the existing directors’ disqualification regime to the directors of dissolved companies.

In dismissing Darty Holdings SAS’ (“Darty”) appeal in a recent decision[1], Miles J. has confirmed that an English court will look at the actual relationship between the parties involved, rather than the wider context, when considering whether those parties are connected. This will be the case even where the wider context consists of a transaction that will, immediately following the relevant transaction, sever that relationship.

Last week was a busy week for the courts: we reported on the landlord-led challenges to the New Look CVA and the Virgin Active restructuring plan. Neither judgment made happy reading for landlords, with all challenges dismissed in New Look and the restructuring plan sanctioned despite their objections in Virgin Active. The story has slightly improved for landlords today with the court revoking the Regis CVA. There are important findings from Regis, but in itself the judgment will not be sufficient to turn the tide.

Overview

On 12 May 2021, the High Court sanctioned three inter-conditional restructuring plans, under the Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, for certain English subsidiaries of the Virgin Active group, despite major opposition of certain landlords.[1] In the landmark decision, the High Court exercised its discretion to cram-down multiple classes of dissenting landlords in each plan, compromising their claims.