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.

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.

Against the backdrop of the insolvency of Scottish companies carrying on business in India, a recent decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session has considered the competency of seeking declaratory orders in petition procedure.

Background

In October 2016, we reported on a Court of Session decision which concerned three Scottish registered companies carrying on business in India and which had been placed into administration under the Insolvency Act 1986.

In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

Can a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) lead to a stay in the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision?

In January of this year the Court of Appeal refused to stay enforcement of an adjudication award due to a CVA ((1838) Cannon Corporate Limited v Primus Build Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 27). Four months later another enforcement decision against a company subject to a CVA came before the Technology and Construction Court (TCC). This time a stay was granted – so what was the difference?

Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on February 20 in the much-watched and even more intensely discussed trademark dispute Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents the difficult and multifaceted question: Does bankruptcy law insulate the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark despite the bankrupt trademark licensor’s decision to “reject” the remaining term of the trademark license?

A party on the receiving end of an adjudication is usually in a difficult position. Its situation is only made worse if the referring party is insolvent.

In such a situation, if the adjudicator makes an award in favour of the insolvent company the chances of subsequently recovering any sums awarded in litigation are very limited. While a stay to enforcement may be available, there are costs associated with obtaining a stay which will probably also be irrecoverable.