Re Akkurate Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] EWHC 1433 (Ch)
Back in November we reported on the case of Wallace v Wallace [2019] EWHC 2503 (Ch), where the Court grappled with the diverging authorities on the issue of whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect.
The issue recently came back before the Court in Re Akkurate Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] EWHC 1433 (Ch).
What did the Court decide?
The decision of Mr Justice Morgan in A Company (Injunction To Restrain Presentation of Petition) [2020] EWHC 1406 (Ch) (judgment anonymised) which was handed down on 2 June 2020 will be of interest to tenants and landlords alike in the current climate. The judgment, which follows the decision in Travelodge Ltd v Prime Aesthetics Ltd [2020] EWHC 1217 (Ch) will be of huge precedent value to commercial tenants that have been impacted by coronavirus and have been unable to meet their rent obligations as a result.
Permanent Reforms
Moratorium: a new stand-alone moratorium to provide businesses with an initial 20-business-day stay from creditor action.
Following the Government's announcement in March that the hotly anticipated changes to the UK's insolvency regime would be rushed through Parliament with further, temporary, provisions to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, insolvency practitioners and business professionals alike have been awaiting further clarity on what the Business Secretary's comments mean for businesses both in the current climate and more generally.
The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that a state court’s finding of “willful and malicious injury” in connection with the misappropriation of trade secrets entitled the plaintiff, in the defendant’s subsequent bankruptcy proceeding, to summary judgment of nondischargeability on collateral estoppel grounds. In re Hill, Case No. 19-5861 (6th Cir. May 4, 2020) (Donald, J.).
“Bankruptcy is about financial death and financial rebirth. Bankruptcy is the great American story rewritten. We’re a nation of debtors.” -Elizabeth Warren
Amid the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and related economic turmoil, bankruptcy filings in the United States are on the rise. Non-US insurers should review contractual arrangements with US insureds and brokers, and establish a plan to deal with bankruptcy filings across the United States in a consistent fashion.
The extraordinary pandemic-based financial challenges impacting hospitals, health systems and other providers as a result of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) should prompt boards to re-evaluate focus on their duty to monitor the organization’s financial condition. Existing case law provides useful direction on the scope of these duties, particularly during periods of financial distress. There is value to enhancing the engagement of the board’s finance (or similar) committee on solvency matters during this period of crisis.
As businesses seek to adapt to deal with the financial impact of COVID-19, boards of directors have been faced with the difficult decision of having to file for insolvency or take steps to preserve business continuity and live to fight another day. Understandably directors' duties is a topic that has come keenly into focus with directors wishing to ensure that, whatever steps they take, they do not incur personal liability.
Der Gesetzesentwurf sieht Regelungen zu Aussetzung der Insolvenzantragspflicht, Zahlungsverboten, neuen Darlehen und Sicherheiten sowie zur Insolvenzanfechtbarkeit vor:
1. Insolvenzantragspflicht
The draft bill provides regulations regarding the suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency, payment prohibitions for management, new loans and securities, as well as claw-back risks:
1. Obligation to File for Insolvency