Healthcare workers are on the frontline of fighting COVID-19, but directors of companies have an equally important task, that of keeping the wheels turning and helping minimise the damage to the economy and the livelihoods of their employees, and keeping otherwise viable businesses intact for when the crisis passes.

How should directors respond to the fast-moving situation and the challenges posed by assessing and dealing with the impact on the business?

Introduction

Section 239(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “1986 Act”) limits the jurisdiction to reverse a preference to situations where “the company which gave the preference was influenced in deciding to give it by a desire to produce” the prohibited result. This involves a subjective enquiry which turns on the relevant actor’s state of mind.

This article first appeared in Corporate Rescue and Insolvency (2019) 6 CRI 218.

In this journal in 2015, I wrote on the subject 'Funding insolvency litigation: a new dawn', outlining various streams of funding available to insolvency practitioners (IPs) (see (2015) 5 CRI 183). Since then, the sun has set on one era and risen again. This article considers key developments in litigation funding in recent years, as well as upcoming reforms which may further change the landscape.

Key Points

The High Court decision in Re All Star Leisure (Group) Limited (2019), which confirmed the validity of an administration appointment by a qualified floating charge holder (QFCH) out of court hours by CE-Filing, will be welcomed.

The decision accepted that the rules did not currently provide for such an out of hours appointment to take place but it confirmed it was a defect capable of being cured and, perhaps more importantly, the court also stressed the need for an urgent review of the rules so that there is no doubt such an appointment could be made.

This article was updated on Jan. 9, 2020. 

To secure an order for the #winding-up of a Quasi-Partnership company on the Just& Equitable ground, is it necessary only to show that mutual trust and confidence between the shareholders/quasi-partners has broken down? Hardwicke investigates the recent case of Badyal v Badyal & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1644

Background

2018 was seen by many as the ‘year of the CVA’ and the year of the so -called ‘Retail CVA’ in particular. Such CVAs have been used in an attempt by companies operating in the retail and casual dining sector with burdensome leases to reduce the cost of their premises whilst continuing to trade.

2019 was widely expected to be the year in which there was a challenge by a landlord under s.6 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘the Act’) to the use of CVAs to force a rent reduction, without comparable cuts to other creditors and so it has proved.

The recent case of Sell Your Car With Us Ltd v Anil Sareen will be of interest to practitioners in Corporate Insolvency as it provides a useful reminder that there is no strict rule that the winding up procedure is inapt for mere debt collection.

The Facts:

The creditor (“AS”) had engaged the debtor company (“SYC”) to sell his Maserati Levante sports car and on completion of the sale to deposit the proceeds in his bank account. Communications were agreed to be conducted by email.

Retail Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs) are becoming an increasingly popular means of minimising liabilities and creating breathing space for tenants during a difficult trading environment on the High Street. Where does this leave landlords?