The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the “Act”) came into force on 26 June 2020 and introduces both temporary provisions linked to the coronavirus pandemic and more permanent changes to the insolvency framework. The key measures can be summarised as below.

Temporary measures

Wrongful trading

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the ‘CIGA’), which came into force on 26 June 2020, introduces the most significant changes to English insolvency law in a generation. In this article, we explore those changes in a ‘question and answer’ format.

At a glance – what has changed?

The CIGA has introduced permanent changes to English legislation that will ensure that England & Wales remains at the forefront of the global restructuring market. These measures are:

Guidance for companies and company directors in Northern Ireland.

Overview

The adverse trading position caused by the COVID-19 situation is significantly impacting the majority of companies and is also bringing the duties of directors – particularly those relating to directors’ actions when a company is in difficulty or insolvent – into sharp relief.

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 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

With the measures in place to deal with the COVID-19 situation, volatility and disruption continue to affect Northern Ireland. As a leading full-service law firm, Arthur Cox is ideally placed to mobilise multi-disciplinary teams of lawyers to provide advice and support to organisations.

1. INTRODUCTION 

1. In May 2019, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce ("UKJT"), a subsidiary of the UK's LawTech Delivery Panel, issued a consultation paper on the status of cryptoassets and smart contracts in English private law ("Consultation Paper"). In his foreword to the Consultation Paper, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court of England and Wales (the "Chancellor") commented that "perceived legal uncertainty" was the reason for some lack of confidence amongst market participants and investors in cryptoassets and smart contracts.¹

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.