In a recent decision in the Admiralty Court before Mr Admiralty Registrar Davison, the Court considered the application of the recently enacted section 233B of the Insolvency Act 1986. Whilst the conclusions reached on that provision are perhaps less surprising given its wide remit, the decision raises some interesting points for contract lawyers on the formation of contracts and the reasonableness of their terms.

Introduction – Section 233B of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act)

In late June 2020, the UK’s Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the Act) became law.1

Op 12 november 2020 heeft de Tweede Kamer het wetsvoorstel tot wijziging van de Tijdelijke wet COVID-19 SZW en JenV (35557) als hamerstuk aangenomen. Vandaag, 24 november 2020, is het wetsvoorstel ook door de Eerste Kamer als hamerstuk afgedaan. Het wetvoorstel maakt het mogelijk (in Hoofdstuk 2 Tijdelijke voorziening betalingsuitstel COVID-19) om de rechter te verzoeken:

A legislative proposal to amend the Temporary Act COVID-19 was adopted by the Dutch parliament on 12 November 2020, and adopted by the Dutch Senate on 24 November 2020. The proposal (the COVID-19 Amendment Act) will enter into force shortly and remain in effect until 1 February 2021. This GT Alert summarizes the measures included in COVID-19 Amendment Act Chapter 2 (Temporary measures for the stay on recovery measures COVID-19).

The COVID-19 Amendment Act provides (in Chapter 2) for the possibility of the debtor requesting that the courts, in connection with the pandemic:

Background

While announcements have been made, and measures extended, to help corporate Britain, directors faced with the difficult decision of whether to trade on through the crisis could suddenly very exposed once again.

The focus on Modern Methods of Construction, or MMC, sharpened throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, with many wondering whether the outbreak and the consequential delays to existing construction projects would propel MMC forward as the future of construction.

This week, the Third Circuit issued an opinion in NJDEP v. American Thermoplastics Corp et al., No. 18-2865, which adds a new wrinkle on CERCLA section 113(f)(2), which bars non-settling parties from bringing claims for contribution against settling parties, while also placing new emphasis on CERCLA section 104 cooperative agreements in the context of settlements.

As previously reported in our article of 21 May 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Act), introduced a number of new tools for businesses suffering financial distress. One of the new measures introduced by the Act was the 'Restructuring Plan' – a process modelled on the existing scheme of arrangement (Scheme) but with the following key distinctions:

Background

On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIG Act) came into force which introduced fundamental changes to the UK’s company and insolvency laws which not only provide temporary assistance to companies and their directors during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, but on a permanent basis have significantly bolstered the UK’s restructuring tool kit. Amongst other matters, the CIG Act implements measures contained in the UK Government's consultation on Insolvency and Corporate Governance which concluded in August 2018.