In these unusual times, Hardwicke is open for business as usual and here to help you and your clients with the multiple issues that may arise out of the current economic conditions. This information update is to help keep you up to date with developments and to share our insight in response to the developments our country is going through at this unprecedented time.
We will be providing regular information to keep you up to date. This update covers:
Although the position is fast-moving and guidance is expected to be given in due course by the Law Society, it is presently understood that remote video conferencing technology such as Skype or Zoom could be used by a practising solicitor to administer a statutory declaration.
On March 25, 2020, the Senate passed an amendment to H.R. 748, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (as amended, the “CARES Act”), which (as of March 26, 2020) is being considered in the House.
The complete text of the current draft of the CARES Act can be found here.
Today’s list of winding up petitions has been adjourned for a minimum of three months with petitions being re-listed for June, July and August. ICC Judge Mullen recited in his order that having considered the Protocol for Remote Hearings dated 20th March 2020 and the LCJ’s Review of Court Arrangements due to COVID-19 dated 23rd March 2020, he has concluded that the list “cannot presently be conducted remotely” and that “satisfactory arrangements to ensure safety cannot be put in place”.
“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked” – Warren Buffet
The tide has gone out on the municipal finance market.
While much of the discussion about the financial fall-out of the COVID-19 virus has focused on the massive wealth destruction in stock markets and pressure on corporates around the world, the impact on the largest financial market in the world- the $3 trillion US municipal finance market- cannot be ignored. Simply put, the market is imploding.
Introduction
Section 239(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “1986 Act”) limits the jurisdiction to reverse a preference to situations where “the company which gave the preference was influenced in deciding to give it by a desire to produce” the prohibited result. This involves a subjective enquiry which turns on the relevant actor’s state of mind.
To secure an order for the #winding-up of a Quasi-Partnership company on the Just& Equitable ground, is it necessary only to show that mutual trust and confidence between the shareholders/quasi-partners has broken down? Hardwicke investigates the recent case of Badyal v Badyal & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1644
Background
2018 was seen by many as the ‘year of the CVA’ and the year of the so -called ‘Retail CVA’ in particular. Such CVAs have been used in an attempt by companies operating in the retail and casual dining sector with burdensome leases to reduce the cost of their premises whilst continuing to trade.
2019 was widely expected to be the year in which there was a challenge by a landlord under s.6 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘the Act’) to the use of CVAs to force a rent reduction, without comparable cuts to other creditors and so it has proved.
The recent case of Sell Your Car With Us Ltd v Anil Sareen will be of interest to practitioners in Corporate Insolvency as it provides a useful reminder that there is no strict rule that the winding up procedure is inapt for mere debt collection.
The Facts:
The creditor (“AS”) had engaged the debtor company (“SYC”) to sell his Maserati Levante sports car and on completion of the sale to deposit the proceeds in his bank account. Communications were agreed to be conducted by email.