As COVID-19 continues to cause widespread economic disruption, the UK government has announced lending measures to support struggling businesses. This alert summarises:
- the measures available;
- key legal considerations for directors hoping to take advantage of new debt; and
- practical steps directors can take to protect themselves from personal liability.
This alert is relevant to directors of disrupted, stressed, and distressed companies who are considering additional borrowing.
What has the government announced?
The High Court recently ruled that the general directors’ duties prescribed by sections 171-177 of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”) (the “General Duties”) continue to apply to directors after their company has entered administration or creditors’ voluntary liquidation (“CVL”). This is notwithstanding that after the appointment of an administrator or liquidator, the ability and rights of directors to control the company are legally and practically curtailed.
Currently, when a UK airline enters insolvency, its operations cease, aeroplanes are grounded and passengers are stranded – in part due to the heavy industry regulation and, in part, because of complex aeroplane financing arrangements. Any operational continuity enabling the repatriation of passengers would be a loss-making activity likely to deplete the amount of money available to the company’s creditors; a result that would be contrary to the aim of UK insolvency processes in general. This starkly contrasts with insolvent U.S. airlines, all of which have been in U.S.
Case: Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) [2018] EWHC 1980 (Ch), Hildyard J (27 July 2018)
Summary
Case:Pantiles Investments Ltd & Anor v Winckler [2019] EWHC 1298 (Ch)(23 May 2019)
Hong Kong Court Addresses Interplay Between Arbitration and Insolvency
The High Court decision in Burnden Holdings clarifies the law on retrospective attacks on the declaration of dividends.
SUMMARY
Summary
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc., v. Tempnology, LLC clarifies that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license under § 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is treated as a breach, and not as a rescission, of that license under § 365(g). The Court held that if a licensee’s right to use the trademark would survive a breach outside of bankruptcy, that same right survives a rejection in bankruptcy.
SUMMARY
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales (“CA”) made a significant ruling on two matters affecting the powers and duties of directors of English companies.