Background

In the 2018 Autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced his intention to reintroduce Crown Preference with effect from 6 April 2020. Due to the attempts to prorogue Parliament and the General Election last year, the necessary legislation was not passed. However, it has now been introduced in the Finance Bill 2020, with the later start date of 1 December 2020.

Cash flow and current and future liquidity are now real concerns for many businesses during this COVID-19 pandemic. Increasingly, the attention of directors and the wider economic ecosystem is turning to consider the issues of approaching insolvency and the duties of directors.

In line with the current approach of the UK Government to support businesses, on Saturday, 28 March, the Business Secretary, Alok Sharma, announced that UK wrongful trading insolvency laws are to temporarily change to help give businesses and directors some "breathing space".

Fraser Turner Limited v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and others [2019] EWCA Civ 1290

The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision striking out claims against administrators which alleged that they owed a duty to a specific creditor and were guilty of misfeasance.

Fraser Turner Limited (FT) was party to an agreement (“Royalty Agreement”) with London Mining plc (“LM”) and London Mining Company Ltd (“LMCL”) which provided for FT to receive a royalty in respect of iron ore produced at the Marampa mine. LMCL was a wholly owned subsidiary of LM.

The Financial Conduct Authority, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme have issued a joint statement warning insolvency practitioners to be careful when handling personal data.

The Joint Statement says that the FCA, ICO and FSCS are aware that some IPs and FCA - authorised firms have attempted to sell clients’ personal data to claims management companies, where it is likely claims for compensation will be made to the FSCS.

Businesses are currently facing unprecedented challenges. DAC Beachcroft is advising the NHS on covid-19 issues, as well as many corporate clients on the business issues arising out of the pandemic, particularly in relation to employees, insurance, continuity and cyber security.

A recent English case has considered for the first time whether and if so to what extent the general duties of a director survive a company’s entry into an insolvency process.

In Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (in liquidation) –v- 12-18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd [2019] EWHC 2651 (TCC), the Court found that in certain circumstances, it is possible for companies in liquidation to legitimately engage in adjudication proceedings.

Background

Historically, there has been some doubt as to whether or not an Adjudicator has jurisdiction to make a decision if the referring party was insolvent. This was due to the fundamental incompatibility between the adjudication process and the insolvency regime.

Following a recent government consultation, new draft legislation is expected this summer which will render HMRC as a “secondary preferential creditor” in insolvencies that commence on or after 6 April 2020. The government’s objective is to ensure that more tax which is collected on behalf of HMRC (circa £1.9bn) is actually paid to HMRC and used to fund public services, and is not distributed to pay other creditors.

Section 127 of the Insolvency Act renders void any disposition of property by a company made in the period between presentation of the winding up petition and the making of a winding up order on that petition unless the court orders otherwise. Guidance on applications for validation orders is given in the Insolvency Practice Direction (“PD”).

In an 8-1decision issued on May 20, the Supreme Court held that rejection of an executory trademark license agreement in a bankruptcy of the licensor is merely a breach, and not a termination or rescission, of the agreement. The licensee retains whatever rights it would have had upon a breach of the agreement prior to bankruptcy and can continue to use the trademarks pursuant to its contractual rights under applicable law. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ___, No. 17-1657 (May 20, 2019).

Background