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.
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:
The UK's Supreme Court ("UKSC") has handed down its judgment following the hearing of the appeal in the case of Sevilleja v Marex Financial Limited [2020] UKSC 31 ("Marex"). The appeal was against the decision of the Court of Appeal to find that the rule of reflective loss applied to 90% of Marex's claim, which was brought in its capacity as a creditor.
The appeal was unanimously allowed by UKSC and it confirmed the rule did not extend to creditors.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA 2020) came into force overnight on Friday 26 June and will have a significant impact on contracts and contract management, in the construction sector, and many others.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) came into effect on 26 June 2020. Whilst the Act makes a number of changes to the insolvency regime (which are detailed in our Restructuring and Insolvency team's previous article), the focus of this section of the article is the potential effects of the CIGA from a pensions perspective.
Key message
On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the "CIGA") came into effect. As anticipated in our previous article the CIGA was fast-tracked through Parliament and some amendments were ultimately made prior to it becoming law.
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?
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more businesses are finding themselves in distress. According to Forbes, 30 million small businesses across the United States are experiencing financial distress, with half of those blaming the global pandemic for revenue decline. These challenges are especially felt by small businesses who may have limited access to the financial markets and investors as compared to larger companies, both public and private, and especially those whose owners have made personal guarantees on business loans.
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.