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.

In brief

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.

Section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that accrued employee entitlements must be paid in priority to the holder of a circulating security interest in a winding up.

Until recently, it was unresolved whether the property subject to a circulating security interest should be determined as at the date the liquidation began, on a continuous basis, or at some other unidentified date.

In brief

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

Even with the fiscal stimulus and other measures taken by the Federal and State governments in Australia, corporate insolvencies are likely to increase in coming months.

Under Australia’s insolvency regimes, a distressed company may be subject to voluntary administration, creditor’s voluntary winding up or court ordered winding up (collectively, an external administration). Each of these processes raises different issues for the commencement and continuation of court and arbitration proceedings.

It is unresolved whether a creditor can rely upon a section 553C set-off under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to reduce an unfair preference claim. Until the controversy is resolved by a binding court decision, liquidators and creditors will continue to adopt opposing positions.

Distressed M&A

Any downturn tends to produce a surge of distressed m&A opportunities, and the current crisis will be no different. Investments in distressed companies follow a different set of rules to "normal" m&A transactions, bringing additional complexity in terms of the stakeholders involved and deal structuring, as well as particular set of challenges for due diligence and buyer protections.

A company in liquidation served a creditor’s statutory demand for debt where there was a genuine dispute about the existence of the alleged debt. The statutory demand was set aside by the Court and the liquidators were ordered to personally pay costs on an indemnity basis.

What happened

In SJG Developments Pty Limited v NT Two Nominees Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2020] QSC 104: