In a damning indictment of the government's handling of the bounce back loan scheme, the Times are reporting that up to £17bn of the £47bn spent by the government on bounce back loans will never be paid back. Of the irrecoverable sums, around £4.9bn is suspected to have been lost to fraud.

The Court of Appeal has held that the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders (who nonetheless enjoy priority status in respect of their creditor claims), providing some much-needed clarity on this issue for e-money institutions and their clients.

A link to the judgment can be found here.

Background

In the recent Court of Appeal case of Re Ipagoo LLP, the court provided welcome clarity on the status of e-money holders’ claims under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMR). In brief, the Court of Appeal held that the EMR do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders. The court confirmed, however, that e-money holders will still enjoy priority status in respect of their e-money creditor claims (crucially) whether or not their funds have been duly segregated from the general pool of assets, as required under the EMR.

In a hearing yesterday, 6 April 2022, the High Court considered an application of the directors of VTB Capital PLC (VTB UK) for the appointment of Teneo Financial Advisory Limited as administrators.

In what Mr Justice Fancourt described as “an unusual case in all sorts of ways”, the English High Court was faced with a number of questions relating to how the UK’s insolvency regime can interact with the sanctions packages introduced in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Despite a valuation fight, the Senior Lenders primed by Super Senior Debt in RP1 have had their debt written off in full in RP2 without even being given the opportunity to vote on the latter restructuring plan.

The case emphasizes that it is not enough for junior creditors to send letters to the court objecting to the RP and then expect the court to argue their case for them. In the words of Lord Justice Snowden, “they must stop shouting from the spectators’ seats and step up to the plate”.

An analysis of the UK’s corporate rescue tools: The Company Voluntary Arrangement, the Scheme of Arrangement and the Restructuring Plan.

When it comes to options for the rescue of a distressed UK corporate, there had for a very long time been a growing mood of regret amongst practitioners that there was no comprehensive restructuring tool. That all changed with the introduction of the Restructuring Plan (RP).

But, as with all things new, the evitable question is: what happens to the old?

The standalone moratorium has been a seldom used restructuring tool since its introduction under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020.

Over recent months we have seen numerous references in the press to investigations into Bounce Back Loan Scheme (BBLS) fraud. A year ago the National Audit Office estimated that around 11% of the loans granted (some £4.9bn) were procured fraudulently. More recent official estimates suggest the figure is between £3.3bn and £5bn.

Needless to say attempting to recover these funds is a enormous task. The National Crime Agency is investigating some of the biggest cases, but equally banks and HMRC are actively seeking to identify fraud and recover the loans.

Customers of Amigo loans will have the opportunity to vote at creditor meetings in relation to two alternative scheme proposals, following its recent leave to convene hearing. In a judgment handed down on 15 March, the court gave leave to convene simultaneous creditors' meetings in relation to two schemes - termed the "New Business Scheme" and the "Wind-Down Scheme".

The High Court has provided useful guidance on the interplay between the JCT regime for payment and claims in insolvency proceedings, in the recent case of Levi Solicitors LLP v Wilson and another [2022] EWHC 24 (Ch).

The application