Introduction
A floating charge will usually set out the rights exercisable by the floating charge holder after the point at which that floating charge has become "enforceable". The floating charge might also contain language clarifying when the charge is deemed to be enforceable - typically after the occurrence of an event of default set out in the underlying facility agreement which is secured by that charge
The UK Government has reintroduced the temporary suspension of wrongful trading measures from 26 November 2020 until 30 April 2021 pursuant to The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Suspension of Liability for Wrongful Trading and Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations. The suspension was originally introduced in March 2020 under section 12 of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 and expired on 30 September 2020.
The onset of COVID-19 has precipitated and accelerated substantial change for businesses in fashion retail, adding to particular headwinds already facing the sector in the UK. While many brick-and-mortar fashion retailers were already experiencing challenging trading conditions at the start of 2020 – ranging from rent and rates overheads to increased online competition – restrictions on and changes to consumer preferences resulting from the pandemic have intensified the challenges facing many fashion retailers and businesses operating in the supply chain.
On 17 October 2020 the coronavirus amendments1 came into effect after being signed by the President of Ukraine. The amendments temporarily change the Code on Bankruptcy Proceedings to protect Ukrainian businesses and mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
With effect from 17 October 2020, throughout the quarantine period and 90 days thereafter, the following changes will apply to the bankruptcy process:
On 17 October 2020 the coronavirus amendments1 came into effect after being signed by the President of Ukraine. The amendments temporarily change the Code on Bankruptcy Proceedings to protect Ukrainian businesses and mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
With effect from 17 October 2020, throughout the quarantine period and 90 days thereafter, the following changes will apply to the bankruptcy process:
Pre-packed administration sales, or pre-packs, remain a useful tool in the tool box for quickly and discreetly achieving a rescue of a business. However, that must always be balanced with the need to protect the veracity of the restructuring process and thereby the interests of creditors. In response to criticism of pre-packs, and a recent review of existing industry measures, the Insolvency Service has proposed draft regulations (the Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc.
Scottish landlords enjoy a preferential right of security known as “landlord’s hypothec” in respect of any unpaid rent arrears due in the event that their tenants enters administration or liquidation. The landlord's right of hypothec is unique to Scots Law and is not available to landlords in respect of properties south of the border. For reasons we will go on to discuss, the current legal framework on landlord’s hypothec is not particularly well developed and is widely criticised as being unsatisfactory.
The Insolvency Service has released the latest insolvency statistics (to September 2020).
These figures are particularly interesting as they shed light on the effects of the various changes to the insolvency landscape that have occurred since Covid-19 started to affect the economy.
Since March 2020, we have seen the introduction of the Corporate Insolvency & Governance Act ("CIGA"), Government schemes and lockdowns of various sizes, shapes and geographical restrictions.
One of the temporary measures that was not extended was the disapplication of the wrongful trading rules of section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 as regards the personal liability of company directors. The discontinuation of the temporary protection has been criticised by business and most recently by the Institute of Directors (IoD) which commented that "Failing to extend the suspension of wrongful trading rules was a mistake. Without this protection, the pressure is on directors to simply shut up shop when faced with difficulty". Is that concern justified?