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.

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.

Shareholders in FTSE 250 company TI Fluid Systems yesterday voted down the company’s proposal to pay a £27 million dividend. In a highly unusual move, 57 per cent of shareholders in the motor part manufacturer used their votes to block the dividend payment which had been recommended by the board just four days earlier. It followed critical media coverage of the proposal, which centred on the fact that the company was making the payment while furloughing staff and cutting workers’ pay and would have resulted in a payment of almost £15 million to US private equity firm Bain Capital.

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

A recently published decision from the Technology and Construction Court, which examined the widely debated issue of whether companies in liquidation can adjudicate, could have increasing significance over the coming months in light of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Government has already taken steps to prevent landlords of commercial premises in England and Wales from forfeiting leases for arrears of rent. This restriction presently lasts until 30 June 2020, but may be extended.

Impact on payment of rent

Rent due was not forgiven and landlords were still able to take various enforcement steps to recover rent, including the use of insolvency proceedings.

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.