In the year leading up to lockdown in March 2020, there were 18,000 corporate insolvencies. The year following lockdown, this figure dramatically dropped by over a third to 11,000.

With the significant reduction in corporate insolvencies, it could be suggested that the Government support has actually been too effective and companies which ought to have entered an insolvency process have avoided doing so due to a mixture of financial support and restrictions on creditors, in particular landlords.

The use of a company name which is the same or similar to the name of an insolvent company is fraught with complications. 

Were you at any stage involved in a company which went into liquidation or administration? Are you now involved in another business with the same or a similar name? If so, you could inadvertently have fallen foul of the criminal and civil liability under Section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Joseph Miller explains the pitfalls of this complicated and often overlooked area of insolvency law.

On 29 September 2021 the High Court dismissed a challenge to Caffè Nero’s 2020 CVA brought by one of its landlords, Ronald Young. Young asserted that the CVA was unfairly prejudicial and subject to material irregularities (thereby engaging both grounds of challenge under s.6 of the Insolvency Act 1986), and that the CVA nominees and company directors had breached their duties by failing to adjourn or postpone voting on the CVA upon receipt of a late-in-the-day offer for the Caffè Nero group.

The Government has announced the relaxation of the rules which were put in place in order to restrict the use of winding up petitions during the coronavirus pandemic. The changes, which come into effect on 1 October 2021 and will remain in force until 31 March 2022, are likely to prompt a significant increase in the number of petitions being presented to the court given the ever-increasing level of debt that has accumulated as a result of the pandemic.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10 Regulations 2021) (the “Regulations”) will modify CIGA by extending certain restrictions on the use of winding up petitions, albeit on a more limited basis, in line with the tapering of government support measures introduced to combat the economic impact of COVID-19.

There has never been a more disruptive time for business. Brexit and the resultant uncertainty arising from the pandemic have dramatically impacted the business landscape over the last 18 months. No matter what the sector, and no matter how big or small the company, every business has been affected by COVID-19 in some way.

The Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021, which came into force on 30 April 2021, introduced several changes to pre-pack sales to connected parties in order to restore public confidence in this type of restructuring deal.

The English High Court has sanctioned the scheme of arrangement proposed by Provident Financial, by which the net liabilities of two Provident group companies to their redress creditors will be subject to a 90-95% haircut. This case raises two interesting questions.

Why was the scheme sanctioned when the recent Amigo Loans scheme was not?

Some further important guidance by Zacaroli J in the recent judgment on Hurricane Energy. In that case, the company (with the support of the company's ad hoc committee of bond holders who were going to take 95% of the equity under the plan in return for certain adjustments to the bonds) sought to cram down the class of dissenting shareholders through a restructuring plan ("plan").

The court found that it could not sanction the scheme, despite the requisite majority of creditors having voted in favour of it. The intervention by the FCA at the sanction hearing marks an interesting development in assessing the extent to which the regulator's views will be aired and considered.