Last week, ICSA (The Chartered Governance Institute) published a new guidance note on shareholder meetings under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA). It has been drafted with a number of other organisations, with the support of the GC 100 (the Association of General Counsel and Company Secretaries working in FTSE 100 companies).
Even before the advent of Covid-19, insolvency-related D&O claims already made up a large part of the management risk landscape.
Corporate insolvencies are on the rise. 2019 saw the highest level of underlying insolvencies since 2013, with the retail, hospitality and construction industries particularly affected. As the ongoing uncertainty of the pandemic further increases the risk that companies will run into financial difficulties, insolvency can only continue to make up a large source of directors’ and officers’ (D&O) claims.
Suppliers can no longer terminate contracts, refuse to supply goods or services or amend payment terms with an insolvent customer due to its insolvency, save in limited circumstances. The new rules - brought in by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) - governing protection of supplies significantly restrict parties’ autonomy in relation to customer insolvency and will be a cause of concern for many suppliers.
New protection of supplies to insolvent companies
The national lockdown in South Africa has left many companies financially distressed and unable to meet their contractual obligations. Looming on the landlord’s horizon may well be its approach to tenants who are placed under business rescue.
Days ago a lawyer's answer to these questions would have been the all too often heard "well, it depends". There would have been a serious risk of any such adjudication being stopped by the court granting a mandatory injunction to halt it. Ask the same questions again now and the response would be a resounding "yes and yes!"
The recent Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Ezair v Conn [2020] EWCA Civ 687, handed down on 1 June 2020, has reiterated that section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) provides only a summary procedure to assist insolvency office-holders in the exercise of their statutory duties. The Court made clear that section 234 IA 1986 does not provide scope for the determination of complex legal issues relating to the property in question.
Few, if any words can do justice to the impact COVID-19 has had on life in the UK over recent months. Legal practitioners’ use of the word “unprecedented” during this period is, well… unprecedented but even it doesn’t begin to describe the effect the pandemic has had on businesses across the country. There isn’t an industry or profession that hasn’t been touched by the effects of the pandemic and the legal sector is no different.
It is imperative that companies in financial distress prioritise their continued existence and consider business rescue as an alternative to liquidation. One of the major advantages of the business rescue process is the moratorium (stay) on legal proceedings which aims to give financially distressed companies sufficient breathing space to trade out of its insolvency. A temporary moratorium automatically comes into operation upon the filing of a resolution placing the company into business rescue or the issuing of an application for an order to this effect.
Traditionally, Midsummer’s Day marks a time for festivities and optimism. But, as 24th June approaches, commercial landlords and tenants are unlikely to enjoy such sanguinity.
This article was first published by CoStar News on 5 June 2020 and can be seen here.
In his judgment handed down on 7 May 2020 in the case of Gregory v ARG (Mansfield) Ltd [2020] EWHC 1133 (Ch), HH Judge Davis-White QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, commented (on an obiter basis) that where a company regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) seeks to enter administration, section 362A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA 2000”) and paragraph 29 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Insolvency Act”), require that writ