The Government has put in place substantial measures that are intended to help mitigate the devastating effect of Covid-19 on the UK economy. Many businesses are now facing their toughest test in living memory. Yet even as the UK endures extraordinary lockdown measures, and with some 3.9 billion people in global isolation, directors of UK companies must continue to try and keep their businesses out of insolvency.
Following the outbreak of a global pandemic unprecedented in recent memory, the UK is now reeling from the devastating effects of the coronavirus. Small and medium-sized businesses throughout the nation will already have been forced to come to terms with this new reality, through a combination of staff illness, forced closures, supply chain disruption and loss of business.
Can they claim for the debts they are owed following the recent compulsory liquidation?
With the sad news that Thomas Cook entered into compulsory liquidation on Monday 23 September 2019, understandably the headlines have focused on the impact of the failure on those holidaymakers who require either repatriation or are now being forced to make alternative holiday arrangements. But what has been the impact on staff? As a global employer of 21,000 employees what are the consequences for them of Thomas Cook’s compulsory liquidation?
It is little wonder why Andrew Tinkler’s removal from the Stobart Group (and subsequent court case) attracted so much media attention:
Introduction
A March 8 2016 decision of the influential Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has attracted attention from – and caused concern for – owners of pipelines and other midstream assets, as well as lenders to midstream and upstream lenders across the United States.
Most due diligence processes in a business acquisition context require a review of material contracts and, in particular, a review of any restrictions on assignment of those contracts.
When a business enters into a long term commercial contract with a customer, the identity of that particular counterparty may influence the terms of the contract. A party deemed more favourable may obtain a better price or better terms. Unless restricted by enforceable anti-assignment provisions, these favourable contracts can be very valuable in a traditional M&A context.
Of general interest is the appeal in the case of Horton v Henry, on which we reported in our January 2015 update. In Horton, the High Court declined to follow a previous ruling, and decided that a bankrupt could not be compelled to access his pension savings to pay off creditors.
Introduction
In this Banking Reform updater we examine the single resolution mechanism (SRM), which together with the single supervisory mechanism (SSM) (Banking Reform updater 10) forms the key pillars of the EU Banking Union.
What is the SRM?