The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (“Bill”) is currently going through Parliament and, if approved, will introduce wide-ranging changes to the UK’s corporate insolvency regime. The Bill includes a number of measures designed to protect businesses which are struggling as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Some of these measures are temporary, however parliament may decide to extend these if necessary.
The key measures included in the Bill are summarised below.
Temporary provisions
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (“Bill”) is currently going through Parliament and, once approved, will introduce wide-ranging changes to the UK’s corporate insolvency regime.
The Government has put in place substantial measures that are intended to help mitigate the devastating effect of Covid-19 on the UK economy. Many businesses are now facing their toughest test in living memory. Yet even as the UK endures extraordinary lockdown measures, and with some 3.9 billion people in global isolation, directors of UK companies must continue to try and keep their businesses out of insolvency.
Following the outbreak of a global pandemic unprecedented in recent memory, the UK is now reeling from the devastating effects of the coronavirus. Small and medium-sized businesses throughout the nation will already have been forced to come to terms with this new reality, through a combination of staff illness, forced closures, supply chain disruption and loss of business.
Can they claim for the debts they are owed following the recent compulsory liquidation?
With the sad news that Thomas Cook entered into compulsory liquidation on Monday 23 September 2019, understandably the headlines have focused on the impact of the failure on those holidaymakers who require either repatriation or are now being forced to make alternative holiday arrangements. But what has been the impact on staff? As a global employer of 21,000 employees what are the consequences for them of Thomas Cook’s compulsory liquidation?
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?
It is little wonder why Andrew Tinkler’s removal from the Stobart Group (and subsequent court case) attracted so much media attention:
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?
On July 19, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered a decision upholding the results of a foreclosure sale against a debtor’s allegation that the sale was a preference because the bankruptcy estate could have sold the property for a higher price. Veltre v. Fifth Third Bank (In re Veltre), Case No. 17-2889 (3d Cir. July 19, 2018).
(Excerpted from “Retail Bankruptcies – Protections for Landlords,” Practical Law Journal, May 2018, by Lars Fuller)
Due to increasing competition from online sellers, recent years have seen a dramatic uptick in Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings by multistate brick-and-mortar retailers – some that have dozens, or even hundreds, of storefronts. These bankruptcies create challenges for the commercial landlords that own the shopping centers, malls and other establishments that those retailers rented.