Government-backed loan schemes implemented to assist ailing businesses during the pandemic have been subject to widespread abuse. An estimated £4.9bn of the £47bn invested in business support loans during the life of the pandemic is thought have been lost to fraud and up to £17bn may never be repaid. In response to concerns about potential abuse of limited company liability, new legislation received Royal Assent on 15 December 2021 - The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 (the Act).

The deadline for obtaining an order to suspend discharge from bankruptcy is absolute, as confirmed in the recent case of Paul Allen (as Trustee in Bankruptcy) v Pramod Mittal (in bankruptcy) [2022] EWHC 762 (Ch).

Background

In a damning indictment of the government's handling of the bounce back loan scheme, the Times are reporting that up to £17bn of the £47bn spent by the government on bounce back loans will never be paid back. Of the irrecoverable sums, around £4.9bn is suspected to have been lost to fraud.

The Court of Appeal has held that the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders (who nonetheless enjoy priority status in respect of their creditor claims), providing some much-needed clarity on this issue for e-money institutions and their clients.

A link to the judgment can be found here.

Background

In the recent Court of Appeal case of Re Ipagoo LLP, the court provided welcome clarity on the status of e-money holders’ claims under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMR). In brief, the Court of Appeal held that the EMR do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders. The court confirmed, however, that e-money holders will still enjoy priority status in respect of their e-money creditor claims (crucially) whether or not their funds have been duly segregated from the general pool of assets, as required under the EMR.

The Russian government has introduced a bankruptcy moratorium with effect from 1 April to 1 October 2022 in respect of all Russian legal entities and individuals (“Persons“) except for certain residential real estate developers.

The moratorium is intended to protect Russian debtors against creditors’ claims and provide support for players on the Russian market given the challenging environment they operate in.

The key consequences of the introduction of the moratorium regime are as follows:

Introduction

From a civil litigation and insolvency perspective, we look at the key impacts of the Hong Kong Courts’ recent General Adjournment of Proceedings (GAP) from 7 March 2022 to 11 April 2022 and related governmental closures.

Key Takeaways

1. The recent implementation of GAP has resulted in a de facto stay of new actions and proceedings, and adjournment of existing actions, including bankruptcy and winding-up petitions.

The standalone moratorium has been a seldom used restructuring tool since its introduction under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020.

Over recent months we have seen numerous references in the press to investigations into Bounce Back Loan Scheme (BBLS) fraud. A year ago the National Audit Office estimated that around 11% of the loans granted (some £4.9bn) were procured fraudulently. More recent official estimates suggest the figure is between £3.3bn and £5bn.

Needless to say attempting to recover these funds is a enormous task. The National Crime Agency is investigating some of the biggest cases, but equally banks and HMRC are actively seeking to identify fraud and recover the loans.