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".

The recent decision of Adam Constable QC in the case of Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (in liquidation) -v- 12-18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd, considered an application for summary judgment to enforce a decision by an adjudicator in favour of an insolvent company.

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

What Is the "Rule in Gibbs"?

The rule in Gibbs is a long-established common law principle in which the Court of Appeal determined that a debt governed by English law cannot be discharged or compromised by a foreign insolvency proceeding(Anthony Gibbs and Sons v La Société Industrielle et Commerciale des Métaux (1890) 25 QBD 399). The rule in Gibbs remains a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law.

Why Does the Rule in Gibbs Matter?

In a brief but significant opinion, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware reversed a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and allowed more than $30 million in unsecured, post-petition fees incurred by an indenture trustee ("Indenture Trustee").1 In reversing, the District Court relied upon a uniform body of Court of Appeals opinions issued on the subject.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Doherty -v- Fannigan Holdings Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1615 considers the issue of whether a failure to pay for shares, as provided for under an agreement between the parties is a debt on which a statutory demand can be based.

The Advocate General Kokott (AG) has given her opinion in Grenville Hampshire -v- The Board of the Pension Protection Fund [2018] (Case C-17/17). This challenges the level of compensation offered by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and could result in increased payments for members.

Background

Mr Hampshire initially brought the case to the Court of Appeal in July 2016, claiming that his pension was cut by 67 per cent when his company scheme was transferred into the PPF.

There are two aspects of wrongful trading and misfeasance that are of interest (i) board directors (and those advising the board) must be aware of the duties that the directors are subject to in performing their role as directors and the liability that attaches to breach of those duties and (ii) companies may be affected by the wrongful trading/misfeasance of customers/suppliers which impacts on trading.

The compulsory liquidation of Carillion is likely to have a wide ranging effect on the construction industry in the UK. The impact may well be felt by other contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers as well as engaged professionals such as architects, engineers and project managers. The insolvency may give rise to calls on bonds or guarantees and affect insurance arrangements.

In this bulletin we summarise what has happened and offer immediate advice.

On October 20, 2017, in In re MPM Silicones, LLC ("Momentive"), Nos. 15-1682, 15-1771, 15-1824, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, considering the Supreme Court's opinion in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), adopted the Sixth Circuit's two-step approach to determining an appropriate cramdown interest rate that, in certain circumstances, results in the application of a market rate of interest. In doing so, the Second Circuit reversed the bankruptcy and district court holdings on the cramdown interest rate issue.