Introduction
When entertaining a jurisdictional challenge to wind-up a foreign company with no place of business in Hong Kong, is it a material concern that alternative remedies for unfair prejudice are available at the company’s place of incorporation but not in Hong Kong (“Question”)?
Virgin Atlantic announced yesterday its plans for a recapitalisation, worth approximately £1.2 billion over the next 18 months. Support has already been secured from the majority of stakeholders.
However, to secure approval from all relevant creditors before implementation, Virgin Atlantic plans to use the new 'restructuring plan' as introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), which came into force late last month.
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:
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
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.