The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 completed ‘ping pong’ in the House of Commons on the afternoon of 25 June 2020, received Royal Assent at 18:08 the same night and took eff ect the following day, 26 June 2020.
At 254 pages, it covers a lot more than just statutory demands and winding-up petitions, including a new company moratorium procedure, but for property folk the immediate impact is that it eff ectively removes the statutory demand/winding-up route against defaulting tenants until at least 30 September.
The tragically unforeseen current novel coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges to all aspects of Hong Kong society including the health of its citizens, the economy and the business community. Economic activities across most sectors globally are being devastated. The dire economic situation in Hong Kong has been exacerbated by the trade war between Washington and Beijing and the new national security law.
The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.
As the lockdown restrictions ease and employers slowly return to more normal ways of working, it is unfortunately inevitable that the impact of the coronavirus means some businesses will have to implement restructures and redundancies in order to survive.
This article looks at the key employment law provisions in restructuring/redundancy situations and offers practical guidance for managing these challenging processes.
Restructures and reorganisations
Background
Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (In Liquidation) -v- Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25
Section 82 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 prevents landlords from forfeiting ‘relevant business tenancies’ until 30 June, and possibly longer. Regulations have also been made restricting the use of commercial rent arrears recovery (CRAR) during the same period, and emergency legislation is promised preventing landlords from serving statutory demands and instituting insolvency proceedings. But tenants should think twice before withholding rent and other lease payments, and landlords do not necessarily have to take a passive role.
The High Court, in Quinn v Toon [2020] NZHC 816, confirmed that only the reasonable costs of the liquidators will be recoverable.
Ms Toon applied for orders under ss 276 and 278 of the Companies Act 1993 to approve her remuneration claiming $101,729 plus GST and expenses for her work as the liquidator of Investacorp Holdings Ltd.
This was a solvent liquidation. While there were no creditors, there were disputes between shareholders that Ms Toon spent a considerable amount of time investigating.
In our December 2019 newsletter we commented that the Madoff bankruptcy had one more big case to go, chasing USD3.2b held by foreign banks. The US Supreme Court has just refused to hear an application by major banks and companies, including Koch Industries Inc, to prevent Mr Picard, the bankruptcy trustee, from pursuing claims aimed at recouping funds that were transferred overseas. In the meantime, Mr Madoff has been refused early
A Singaporean Court in Anan Group (Singapore) PTE Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) [2020] SGCA 33 has recently confirmed the Court’s approach in assessing arbitration clauses when an application has been brought to put a company into liquidation.
The parties in this case are parties to an arbitration agreement. The respondent applied to put the appellant into liquidation. The Court considered that the winding up proceeding should be stayed with the underlying dispute to be resolved through arbitration.