The UK's Supreme Court ("UKSC") has handed down its judgment following the hearing of the appeal in the case of Sevilleja v Marex Financial Limited [2020] UKSC 31 ("Marex"). The appeal was against the decision of the Court of Appeal to find that the rule of reflective loss applied to 90% of Marex's claim, which was brought in its capacity as a creditor.

The appeal was unanimously allowed by UKSC and it confirmed the rule did not extend to creditors.

Earlier in March and prior to Covid-19 taking over both the world and the legal world, Mr Justice Snowden handed down his judgment in Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) et ors v (1) Natwest Markets PLC and (2) Mercuria Energy Europe Trading Limited [2020] EWHC 546 (Ch) in which he found both RBS (as defined below) and RBS SEEL (also as defined below) liable for dishonest assistance and knowingly being a party to fraudulent trading. As demonstrated below, the judgment contains a number of cautionary lessons for both banks and traders alike.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA 2020) came into force overnight on Friday 26 June and will have a significant impact on contracts and contract management, in the construction sector, and many others.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) came into effect on 26 June 2020. Whilst the Act makes a number of changes to the insolvency regime (which are detailed in our Restructuring and Insolvency team's previous article), the focus of this section of the article is the potential effects of the CIGA from a pensions perspective.

Key message

In brief

On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the "CIGA") came into effect. As anticipated in our previous article the CIGA was fast-tracked through Parliament and some amendments were ultimately made prior to it becoming law.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly reshaped the global business landscape. Some companies that only months ago seemed unstoppably profitable have been brought to an existential brink by extended lockdowns, supply chain failures, and other obstacles caused by the pandemic. Other companies who have experienced less disruption (or in some cases windfalls) stand at the threshold of opportunity even as they prepare themselves for the challenges of the 'new normal'.

In May, we reported (please refer to our previous alert available here) that the UK Government's much anticipated reforms to UK insolvency law were introduced in Parliament when the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2020 (the "Bill") started its passage in the House of Commons on 20 May 2020.

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?

In brief

The following measures introduced as a COVID-19 response are now to be extended: