On 6 April 2020, the Insolvency Act 1986 (Prescribed Part) (Amendment) Order 2020 came into force. This order amends the Insolvency Act 1986 (Prescribed Part) Order 2003, and increases the maximum amount of the prescribed part from £600,000 to £800,000.

Prescribed Part

The “prescribed part” is the term given to a portion of funds realised from assets charged by way of floating, but not fixed, charge, where:

1 the floating charge was created on or after 15 September 2003; and

The Government's temporary suspension of the rules surrounding wrongful trading, to apply retrospectively from 1 March 2020 for three months, will temporarily protect directors from actions for wrongful trading (and so encourage them to continue trading in circumstances where otherwise they may have feared to).

The government has responded to intense pressure from the restructuring and insolvency community by announcing measures to 'protect companies hit by COVID-19'. Insolvency law will be amended 'to give companies breathing space and keep trading while they explore options for rescue'.

The UK Government has announced that:

It will temporarily suspend the offence of wrongful trading by directors of English companies for 3 months Amend insolvency laws to bring in more debtor friendly style processes where English companies can continue to trade while negotiating a restructuring solution with their creditors.

As ever, we await full details and legislation.

Wrongful Trading Suspension

RAAs are a statutory restructuring mechanism which operate by apportioning the departing employer’s share of liability between it and remaining employers. As an RAA can be entered before the insolvency process is initiated, RAAs can permit corporate restructuring in response to financial hardship without triggering the departing employer’s insolvency.

2019 was for many a year of waiting…we waited, and waited and indeed still wait…for Brexit. That inevitably has had an impact on the property world and in particular the investment market experiencing a degree of inactivity. Somewhat ironically though Brexit has given us one of several important decisions in 2019 relevant to the Real Estate Disputes world.

On November 12, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed a decision of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts in a case that illustrates fraudulent transfer risk for colleges and universities that receive tuition payments from a student’s insolvent parents.

Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Claims and College Tuition Payments

On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling in the case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The decision resolves a circuit split, holding that a licensee may retain its right to use licensed trademarks, notwithstanding the debtor-licensor’s rejection of the contract in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court’s decision has potentially far-reaching implications.

In normal circumstances, a director’s primary duty (owed to the company, not the company’s shareholders or the corporate group) is to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its shareholders as a whole. When a company enters a period of financial distress (the so-called “zone of insolvency”) there is a shift of emphasis in the duties of the directors: directors must consider the interests of the company’s creditors and, depending on the extent of the financial distress, may need to prioritise such interests over those of its members.

When a company enters a period of financial distress, directors must consider the interests of the company’s creditors and, depending on the extent of the financial distress, may need to prioritise such interests over those of its members. In such distressed situations, the key current heads of liability directors may face (for which they may potentially incur personal liabilities) include wrongful trading, fraudulent trading, misfeasance and breach of duty.