On 28 June 2021, the Minister of Justice presented a draft temporary bill on transparency of expedited liquidations (de tijdelijke wet transparantie turboliquidatie). As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Minister expects that there will be an increase in the number of businesses that will need to be liquidated. Under Dutch law, the most efficient way to do this is through expedited liquidation (turboliquidatie). However, as the expedited liquidation barely provides for safeguards to creditors, it is often considered a mechanism that is open for abuse.

The Government has extended the restrictions in place concerning winding-up petitions and forfeiture of business tenancies until 30 September 2021 and 25 March 2022 respectively.

The extensions will receive a mixed reception, with landlords likely to feel particularly aggrieved at the limitations imposed on their ability to pursue debt (by winding-up petition) in circumstances where the tenant can pay, but won’t pay.

Insolvency practitioners will need to be familiar with three new Statements of Insolvency Practice which were introduced with effect from 1 April 2021.

Companies House temporarily paused their strike off processes in April 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The effect of this was to stay all strike off action. The stay was lifted on 10 October 2020 but stayed for a second time on 21 January 2021.

The second stay was lifted on 8 March 2021 and, absent further significant disruption caused by COVID-19, is unlikely to be subject to a further stay.

In Sarjanda Ltd (in liquidation) v Aluminium Eco Solutions Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 210 (Ch), an application to rescind a winding up order was refused where the application had been made over two years outside of the five-day time limit. That level of delay, allegedly caused by the company negotiating payment of its debts, was not a good enough reason for the breach of the time limit.

Practitioners are likely to be familiar with the provisions of The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA 2020”) which introduced new permanent measures to complement the insolvency regime as well as a number of temporary measures to support business dealing with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2016, the High Court determined that a person may propose to do something without having a settled intention to do it and dismissed an application for an order removing a fourth notice of intention from the court file. At the time the fourth notice was filed, the director only intended to appoint administrators if a CVA proposal was rejected by creditors.

This article looks at how to deal with bankrupt Claimants and the effect that their bankruptcy has on both pre and post litigated claims, where the Credit Hire Organisations (CHOs) may continue to pursue the claim. We have focused on the law surrounding bankruptcy including what types of claim remain vested in a Claimant as well as how to deal with such a claim and issues that may arise.

This article deals with the effect on claims, both pre-litigation and post, which are driven by Credit Hire Organisations (CHOs) who are insolvent or begin an insolvency process. We have focused on practical considerations to identify such claims as well as what you will need to bear in mind when handling credit hire claims where the CHO is insolvent.

Background

There are three main strands: -

Landlords have become used to the concept of the retail CVA over the past few years, but the new post COVID-19 breed of CVAs has been pushing the boundaries as never before. Further, a new restructuring option – described by some as a “CVA on steroids” – is now available to tenants courtesy of the recently enacted Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act: the s26A Restructuring Plan. Restructuring Plans enable companies, with the sanction of the Court, to impose new terms on creditors even in circumstances where not all classes of creditor have approved the plan.