Re Akkurate Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] EWHC 1433 (Ch)

Back in November we reported on the case of Wallace v Wallace [2019] EWHC 2503 (Ch), where the Court grappled with the diverging authorities on the issue of whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect.

The issue recently came back before the Court in Re Akkurate Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] EWHC 1433 (Ch).

What did the Court decide?

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2020 (the Bill) was published on 20 May 2020. Following completion of the Bill's third reading in the House of Commons, it is now proceeding through the House of Lords.

The (the Bill) was published on 20 May 2020. Following completion of the Bill's third reading in the House of Commons, it is now proceeding through the House of Lords.

he Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2020 (the Bill) was published on 20 May 2020. Following completion of the Bill's third reading in the House of Commons, it is now proceeding through the House of Lords.

The decision of Mr Justice Morgan in A Company (Injunction To Restrain Presentation of Petition) [2020] EWHC 1406 (Ch) (judgment anonymised) which was handed down on 2 June 2020 will be of interest to tenants and landlords alike in the current climate. The judgment, which follows the decision in Travelodge Ltd v Prime Aesthetics Ltd [2020] EWHC 1217 (Ch) will be of huge precedent value to commercial tenants that have been impacted by coronavirus and have been unable to meet their rent obligations as a result.

In a decision released on March 11, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided reassurance for those in the construction industry of the effectiveness of section 9(1) of the Construction Act, RSO c C.30 (“CA”) in insolvency proceedings. This decision did not overturn the previous decision rendered in Re Veltri Metal Products Co (2005), 48 CLR (3d) 161 (Ont CA) (“Veltri”); rather, the Court of Appeal distinguished the two cases on the facts.

Whether or not the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on a party’s ability to perform its obligations will constitute a force majeure event enabling them to claim relief depends on the terms of the contract as applied to the precise circumstances. Where there is no force majeure clause, a party may in rare circumstances be able to invoke the doctrine of frustration.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill was first read to Parliament on 20 May 2020. It is set to be fast tracked into legislation and will likely be law by 10 June 2020.

Following the Government's announcement in March that the hotly anticipated changes to the UK's insolvency regime would be rushed through Parliament with further, temporary, provisions to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, insolvency practitioners and business professionals alike have been awaiting further clarity on what the Business Secretary's comments mean for businesses both in the current climate and more generally.

APPEAL ALLOWED

9354-9186 Québec inc. v. Callidus Capital Corp., 2020 SCC 10

Bankruptcy and insolvency   Discretionary authority of supervising judge in proceedings under Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act    Appellate review of decisions of supervising judge

We have previously reported on the developing area of adjudication by insolvent companies, now the subject of another key judgment. In Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited and Astec Projects Limited (in liquidation) [2020] the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has provided a further clear example of the type of strict conditions that will need to be satisfied to enable such adjudications to proceed.