Introduction
In May 2022, there were a total of 1,817 company insolvencies in England and Wales. Overall company insolvencies in May 2022 were 34% higher when compared to May 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 79% higher than insolvencies recorded in May 2021.
More insolvencies means more directors being issued director questionnaires from liquidators or administrators asking them to explain their prior conduct.
This article was originally published by Travel Weekly on 21 July
The UK Government has indicated that its enthusiasm for introducing consumer protection for airline failure has waned significantly. It now looks doubtful that the recommendations of the Airline Insolvency Review will be implemented in the short term, or even at all.
A recently published case has shone a new light on the well-known fact of English company law – that a company has its own legal personality and is therefore separate and distinct from its members and directors.
Thus, a company shields its members and directors from most liabilities. For directors, this protective veil is pierced in certain limited circumstances such as those set out below.
In our original article, we prefaced that Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) would likely utilize the Texas Two Step to attempt to resolve its tort liabilities related to talc powder.1 On October 12, 2021, J&J did just that. The company used Texas’s divisive merger statute to spinoff the talc liabilities into a new entity, LTL Management, LLC (“LTL”).
The fact that more businesses have not failed is the most surprising thing about the Covid-19 pandemic. However, if you look at the fashion retail sector alone, the list of some of the high profile casualties is alarming: Arcadia Group, Bonmarché, Debenhams, DW Sports, Laura Ashley, M&Co, Monsoon, Moss Bros, Oasis and Warehouse, Peacock and Jaeger, TM Lewin and Victoria’s Secret (UK Business)… with more expected.
Every five years or so, the insolvency profession seems to try and wrestle with the public outcry about the use of so-called pre-packs. In its simplest terms, this is where “Widget Manufacturing Limited” goes into administration, and the very next day “Widget Manufacturing 2021 Limited” is operating the same business and being owned by the same shareholders. The only crucial difference is that several key liabilities (usually owed to landlords) are left behind in the insolvent business.
A quick recap
In March 2020 the UK Government imposed unprecedented restrictions in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic in relation to the forfeiture of commercial leases by enacting the Coronavirus Act 2020 and other business support measures. These introduced the following key restrictions on rent arrears recovery:
We discussed in the March 2020 edition of the Texas Bar Journal1 the bankruptcy court ruling by Judge Craig A. Gargotta of San Antonio in In Re First River Energy LLC that oil and gas producers in Texas do not hold perfected security interests in oil and gas well proceeds, notwithstanding the Texas Legislature’s efforts to protect producers and royalty owners following the downturn in the 1980s. The Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed Judge Gargotta’s decision.
This article sets out some reflections on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Limited [2020] UKSC 31 from July 2020 which clarifies the scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ rule. The first instance judgment raised some comment-worthy issues regarding the economic torts which were not the subject of any appeal.